Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.08.10Parcel ID: 2729-29-3-04-011 Application Date: 7/2/08 Case No: BOA008-08 Description: Petterson Front Yard Setback Variance Staff # BOA10-08 Project Address: 222 BOBCAT LN, CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Property Owner: PETTERSON Address: 222 BOBCAT LN CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Owner's REP: ERIC PETTERSON Address: 222 BOBCAT LN CARBONDALE, CO 81623 REP's Email: Planner: # Copies: Allocated Hours: Over Hours: Owner Phone: REP's Phone: Referrals: Comments Due Date: Other Referrals: Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: 08/07/2008 Review Body: boa Public Hearing? yes Notice Date: 07/20/2008 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: BOA #10-2008 #554013 Application Type: RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO - -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT E-11, REDSTONE RANCH ACRES, SUBDIVISION FILING 3 Resolution No. 10 -2008 WHEREAS, Eric Petterson, owner of 0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone CO 81623, is requesting a 22.5 foot Front Yazd Setback Variance where 30 feet is required to permit an existing shed; and WHEREAS, the parcel contains .45 acres and is located in the AR-10 zone district; and WHEREAS, the property legal description is Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres; and WHEREAS, the Boazd of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 7-10.30, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Boazd of Adjustment makes the following fmdings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hazdship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial 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 Boazd of Adjustment, that a 22.5 foot Front Yazd Setback variance be granted to permit the existing shed shown on Exhibit A, "by reason that the unusual topographic conditions or other situations or conditions as such a piece of property where a strict application of height and setback regulation of the Land Use Code were to result in peculiaz practical difficulties to or undue hardship upon the owner of such property." WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Boazd of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: August 7, 2008 The Boazd of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: Susan Peazson, date Rick ead, _. date County Zoning Officer Co-Chairpere Parcel IDs 2729-293-04-011 ao~i~oz ~~~'53 RECEPTION#: 554013, 11/03/2008 at 03:48:56 PM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO i31~~~`~02 MINUTES Meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment August 7, 2008 Members Present: James Rifkin, Jamie Brewster, Robert Throm Co-Chairs, Rick Head and Patrick McAllister Members Absent: Michael Cooper Staff: Susan Pearson, Zoning Officer and acting secretary Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer Head opened the meeting at 5:30pm. CASELOAD: Case # 09-2008 John Snyder (represented by Dan Harris) Lot 34, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision Contractor, Dan Harris was present to request a 3 foot height variance where a maximum height of 6 feet is allowed for a driveway retaining wall to be constructed within the front yazd setback. The parcel contains 1.03 acres and is zoned R-30. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Hams submitted a letter of support from the Ridge of Red Mountain Homeowner's Association. Pearson mentioned that of the five adjacent property notices that were mailed, one was returned to sender. Harris explained that the existing driveway cut was made in 1974. The proposed retaining wall will follow the existing cut. The Fire Departrnent required that the existing driveway be widened from 15' to 16'. The main purpose for the wall is to control erosion coming from down the hill above. There was concern about the spring run-off possibly creating a "catastrophe". Riflcin and McAllister asked about the timing of this request considering the work appears to be under construction. Harris stated that after much consideration as to what to do about the erosion of the driveway cut and its associated hazazds (rocks falling onto the driveway), the owner decided to build an engineered wall, including a soil nail wall and veneer fapade. He admitted that work was begun before the permit was obtained, but didn't think there would be any issues. When a building permit was finally applied for, the zoning officer cited setback and building envelope concerns. The building envelope has been amended and now this variance is necessary. Head asked why the variance request is only for three feet when the wall is in fact 11' high. Peazson pointed out that the vaziance request is for development within the setback azea only. Where the wall is 11' high is within the HOA's right-of--way, which we do not I o-~ 3 - ~ ~ 0'~.' it ~ regulate. Harris stated that the HOA has issued the owner a license to develop the wall, driveway, and landscaping within its right-of--way. Rifkin moved to approve the application due to topographical hardship. Throm seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Case # 10-2008 Eric Petterson Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres Snbdivision No. 3 Aka 0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Eric Petterson was present to request a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required to permit an existing shed. The parcel contains .45 acres and is zoned AR-10. Petterson informed the Board of his intent to sell the properly and the prospective owners are aware of this variance application. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. Neighbors, Edie Engstrom, Jay Engstrom, Mazk Luzac, Catherine Buck, and Gary Engstrom were all present in support of the application. The Board took a small break to read a letter of objection from neighbor, Roger Sherman and to read a response prepazed by Petterson. Petterson gave an overview of the variance request due to topographical constraints. The shed was built by the previous owner in 1999 and Petterson now uses it for his office. He showed the Boazd a site plan indicating a building envelope limited by the steep slopes behind his house. The existing house received a setback variance in 1999. The shed lies completely within the Front Yard setback. To move the shed outside of the setback would place the shed at the bottom of the hill outside of his building envelope. Petterson showed a plat of the subdivision and explained where the various neighbors live. Sherman owns two lots across the street from Petterson, one which is vacant and one on which he has his home. The letter of objection and a short history of Petterson's conflicts with Sherman was discussed. The Board asked Petterson why a variance is being sought now when the shed is nine years old. Petterson explained that recent conflicts with Sherman resulted in a Correction Notice being issued by Pitkin County regarding various illegal uses / structures on the Petterson property. He is now trying to permit those uses and structures and needs a variance to do so. Rifkin asked if there was an HOA for Redstone Ranch Acres. Petterson responded that the HOA has been defunct for about 20 years and that a road district maintains the subdivision roads. The vaziance request was discussed next. The Public Notice printed in the newspaper erroneously requested a 10' side yazd setback. But after further review it was determined that the correct request is fora 2.5 foot Front Yard setback variance. Since the Public Notice had already been mailed out, whether or not neighbors should have been re- noticed was discussed. County Attorney, John Ely suggested that since the neighbor has ,,, ~ Z ' objections and could pose a challenge, the Public Notice should be redone. Head suggested that the application be tabled and re-noticed. Petterson objected to tabling the application. He stated that the sign in front of his house had the correct informafion, and Schaffner stated that she has spoken to Sherman and that he is awaze of the correct request. Riflcin thought that Sherman had actual legal notice of the request by his own admission. Head wanted the record to reflect that the discrepancy in the notices was noted and discussed, and that the Board determined that it was ok to proceed despite the discrepancy. The Boazd took comments from all the neighbors who were present. Most felt that Sherman was being vindictive and has been a "bad neighbor" over the years. None had an issue with the shed and even felt that it was "cute". Throm moved to approve the application as presented due to the unusual topographic conditions and the enactment of regulations. Rifkin moved to amend Throm's motion; "to grant a variance as requested by reason that the unusual topographic conditions or other situations or conditions as such a piece of property where a strict application of height and setback regulation of the Land Use Code were to result in peculiar practical difficulties to or undue hazdship upon the owner of such property." Brewster-McLeod seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS: There was a request made by Schaffner to hold the September meeting on September 9, 2008 rather than September 2, 2008 (day after Labor Day). This request was granted by the Boazd -all Board members were in agreement. Head tabled Case 11-08, at the applicants (Pitkin County-Crown Point) request, to September 9, 2008 at 5:30pm. Throm seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. MINUTES: Head made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2008 meeting. Tlrrom seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. There being no further business before the Boazd, the meeting was adjourned. *******a************x***x******++a**x*********************~~-*~*~**t**** Respectfully submittned, , //t arena Schaff r, Acting ary Rick Head, Co-Chair ~--r! -G ~ Date Z- ~~ Date 3 '~' ' PITHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Application Fotm DATE ~ - I ~ -og REPRESENTATIVE ~Z ri~`~~Rcl~r-~ PHONE `l~-~6~J-2-(Qa E-MAIL, L-'v2 t~ETT"`LS~ ~.1-[',h~qw~. NE't- FAX ~'~-~P63-2tYo MAILING ADDRESS O22Z !~7bcsts (.N itx'I~~"i~C 'Cv ,~16Z3 OWNER `` PHONE MAILING ADDRESS .. .l LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5.~, L (~.,J2c`'~-'•• 72ae-cb4 ~r~e~ S~Bi~ib~~+ 3 , °RL't7i~e~ Co . SUBJECT' PARCEL ADDRESS D 22"L 3o3cg~r- I~ri • i7koS~D+"e ~ (~~ PARCEL ID # Z~2 azQ ~`~ ©tl ZONE DISTRICT~Z-f p _ LOT SIZE ~• ~ SIGNATURE (To be completed by the Zoning Department) p~ CASE #~~_ Requesting / ~ / ~' 'Front Yard Setback Variance, where V ' is required. ~ '~ G- 7 S F-raN ~ ~li~ `O ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where _ ' _ Side Yard Setback Variance, where _ ' _ Side Yard Setback Variance, where _ ' Height Variance, where ' is allowed Comments: ' is reQUlred. ' is required. ' is required. Application filed Refer to Zoning ~t=~ ~c IC v AQtR1.~k Date of Meeting Notices Mailed Secretary ,, r~ Variance Request to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Utility Sheds Setback Request- 0222 Bobcat Lane Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision Legal Description- Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision No. 3, Pitkin County, CO. Address- 0222 Bobcat Ln. Redstone, CO 81623 Owner Contact Info- Eric Petterson 0222 Bobcat Ln. Redstone, CO 81623 970-704-1226 970-963-2190 Reason for Variance Request- Lot E-11, while being 0.45 acres, actually has a very small developable azea due to steep slopes dropping down towards Kline Creek. This developable azea was permitted for a single family residence of /) / approximately 2,000 sq.ft. which was constructed in 1999. Along with the single (///~ family home, a small 10' x 18' shed with a concrete slab foundation was constructed in either 1999 or 2000. Shed #1: We purchased the property in 2002. At that time Shed #1 (10' x 18') was existing on the property. According to Pitkin County records, a building permit may not have been properly obtained for this shed. This shed extends into the 10 foot setback along the side of the lot, by approximately 1.5 feet as measured from the corner of the shed. If you include the extended eave of the shed, it likely extends into the 10' setback by approximately 2.5 feet. The actually roadbed "as is° is approximately 17' from the corner of the shed. The road Right of Way (ROW) is 30' wide. ~v;~ 5/5/OS Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer Pitkin County Community Development City Hall 130 S. Galena Street, 3`d Floor Aspen, CO 81611 I am writing this letter to inform you of several serious violations of the Pitkin County Land Use Code by various parties. These violations are as follows: 1. Custom Home Environments (license # C-004029) and/or its owner, Mazk Gluszek, built a major addition to a residence at 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, without obtaining a building permit in violation of sections 11.36.010(B)(1), 11.36.010(B)(2), and 11.36.010(B)(6) of the Land Use Code and innumerable violations of the adopted International Residential Code. 2. Eric Petterson, of 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, had above said addition built without a building permit and in violation of sections 10.20.10 and 10.20.20 of the Land Use Code and innumerable violations of the adopted Intemational Residential Code, including, but not limited to, sections R403.1.7 and R403.1.7.2 concerning building neaz a slope. This addition also violates the original setbacks recorded by the Pitkin County Boazd of Adjustments Resolution # 98-04 (Reception #426303) which shows a 10' setback from the top of slope. It also violates the geological hazazds portion of the original 1041 Hazazd Review Site Plan for this property, and was built outside the original building envelope. 3. Eric Petterson, of 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, removed his septic system at 222 Bobcat Lane due to failure and replaced it with an un-approved dry well in violation of section 6.28.200 of the Land Use Code (previous code) and/or section 6.28.020(A)(1) (newly adopted code). 4. The original developer of the improvements at 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, installed a driveway at least partially over the septic system in violation of section 6.28.560(K) of the Land Use Code. The use of this driveway continues today. 5. Eric Petterson, of 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, has an office building and a storage shed on his property at 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, which violates the setback requirements of section 5.20.100 of the Land Use Code and possibly other violations as well. 6. Eric Petterson, of 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, has installed a non- conforming fence on his property (and in fact portions aze several feet outside his property line and into the road right-of--way) in violation of section 7.20.70 of the Land Use Codes, in violation of the 1041 Hazazd Review Site Plan for this property, and in violation of the fencing regulations found at http //www asoenoitkin com/pdfs/deots/7ifence pdf. 7. Eric Petterson, of 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres, allows his dog to run at lazge in violation of section 5.04.070 of the Land Use Code and in violation of the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan for this property regazding dogs and critical wildlife habitat. The above violations alleged by me aze based upon personal observation and knowledge of these activities. I have done my best to exercise due diligence in reseazching and interpreting the Land Use Codes and although you may find some inaccuracies in the above allegations I believe in my opinion I have accurately described and identified these violations of the Land Use Code. I own property adjacent to 222 Bobcat Lane and many of these alleged violations affect me and my property. My concerns regarding the above violations are many and are as follows: 1. No licensed contractor should be allowed to have complete and utter disregazd for the laws and zoning and building codes for which they agree to abide by via their contractor's license and should be subject to the maximum penalties afforded according to section 11.36.020 of the Land Use Code. Mazk Gluszek of Custom Home Environments has subjected the property owners of 222 Bobcat Lane to unnecessary hazazds to life and limb and most likely will cause substantial financial loss to the owners of said property. 2. Due to building the above mentioned addition without following the Land Use Code and by constructing an inadequate foundation at the edge of a steep slope, I have concerns that if the foundation or slope fails then it may seriously jeopardize the lives and property of not only the owners' of said property, but also of nearby neighbors and property owners if such a failure should start a wildfire if an electrical fire should start due to the illegal addition pulling away from the building and stressing electrical wiring and connections. 3. I own property adjacent to, and at a lower elevation than, 222 Bobcat Lane and am concerned that effluent from the illegally repaired septic system may contaminate my property. The driveway overlapping the septic system is a likely cause of the failure of the septic system and should be located elsewhere. 4. When the property at 222 Bobcat Lane was proposed for development and I received notice of an application by the then owner of said property for a proposed 10' setback variance, I wrote to the county expressing my concerns that if the developer was allowed a 10' variance that no current or future owner would be satisfied with such a small setback from Bobcat Lane and such a variance would cause traffic on Bobcat Lane to be pushed further and further towazd my property and possibly encroach onto my property. Immediately my predictions came true as the original property owner installed trees, sod, and other landscaping into the road right-of--way, installed the water line from the well into the road right-of--way, re-graded the road and added road base onto my property, and the current owner installed a fence, trees, and other landscaping into the road right-of--way, all causing traffic to be diverted onto my property. The office building and storage shed also tend to push traffic away from 222 Bobcat Lane as they aze just a few feet from the property line. Eric Petterson allows his dog to run and defecate on my property on a daily basis. aka,;-~(?9 6. I live in critical wildlife habitat and in fact have elk bedding down nightly in the winter months just a few feet from my house. Eric Petterson's dog has made a habit out of coming onto my property and bazking at and otherwise harassing the elk, causing undo stress to them during the hazsh winter months and depriving us of our enjoyment of these beautiful creatures. 7. Eric Petterson and his company Rocky Mountain Ecological Services is either currently contracted with, or has recently for several yeazs contracted with Pitkin County to do some of the 1041 Hazard Reviews for the County. By willfully ignoring and violating the very 1041 Hazard Review rules and regulations which he imposes on other property owners he compromises the public's trust in the fairness and integrity of Pitkin County government and unduly gives the impression of favoritism, cronyism, and corruption. I informed Eric Petterson that his activities were impacting my property and asked him if he would at the very least move his non-conforming fence and his landscaping back onto his own property. He refused and told me I would have to take my concerns before our Home Owners' Association and Road District (of which he is the sole representative for both!) for relief. I then showed him the Pitkin County fencing regulations and he said he knows them well as he helped write them! And he still refuses to move his fence and bring it into compliance! I have exhausted all avenues of reasoning with these people to try to get them to voluntarily conform to the Land Use Codes and in return have been subjected to various forms of harassment, retribution, and threats of lawsuits. Therefore I feel I have no choice but to write this letter to inform you of these violations. As Eric Petterson may have ongoing business, professional, or other relationships with many Community Development officials, I respectfully request that an impartial, senior official from the Community Development department or a specially appointed official or outside party investigate these allegations, provide a fair resolution, and pursue any applicable sanctions and penalties. You may reach me by mail or by calling me at the phone number listed below if you have any questions or need more information. I would like to be kept apprised of all investigations, developments, follow-ups, and resolutions of these matters. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Roger Sherman PO Box 644 Cazbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-3689 lr~~. .i 4i a J~ April 22, 2008 Roger & Tamera Sherman 0233 Bobcat Lane Redstone, CO 81623 RE: Road Improvement Activities on Bobcat Lane, Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision Dear Roger & Tammy: This letter is to inform you that the road improvement activities you are conducting on Bobcat Lane are being conducted without the authorization of the Redstone Ranch Acres Road District Committee (Road District Committee). These activities include (but are not limited to) removal of vegetation and landscaping from the Right-of--Way (ROW) on property owned by Mazk Gluzek (Parcel ID #21009). I understand that the Road District has not been available or confident in their duties to address your needs, and have lacked a quorum for quite some time in order to respond to your requests or concerns regarding appropriate uses of designated ROWS around your properties within the subdivision. Because the Road District Committee has not had a quorum, we have felt that we were not in a position to address your concerns. I understand your frustration with the lack of attention to your needs, and why you have taken it upon yourselves to address your access needs. However, forthwith, with guidance from Pitkin County Community Development staff (L. Clark, pers. comm. 4/22/2008), I will be selecting three new members to serve on the Road District Committee and they will be tasked with providing decision making abilities in order to resolve your concerns regarding ROW use around your properties. I will not be selecting any new Road District Committee members who have, or have had, any current or past issues regarding the use of roads, or property issues/conflicts with you. Other persons in the subdivision who I will not be considering for a position on the Road District Committee at this time (due to any past issues, or the current issues between yourselves and Mr. Gluzek) will be Mazk Gluzek, Gary and Edie Engstrom, the Bertagnolis, Tamera and Roger Sherman, and myself. It is my opinion as a member of the Road District Committee that this would be in the best interest of all parties involved, and the Road District as a whole. Based on your comments to me on April 20, 2008, you would like me to vacate my landscaping and fence from the ROW on my property (Pazcel ID#21008), in order to allow for better passing conditions and provide more efficient access to the property containing your woodshop (in the ownership of Blue Ox Logcrafters, parcel ID #21006), immediately north of the Lot containing your home (Parcel ID#21010). Because of my vested interest in any outcome regazding ROW use around your properties, 1 will also be recusing /resigning my post from the Road District Committee after we have a quorum, so that your concerns can be heard by a panel with no vested interests in the outcome. After a new Road District Committee is assembled, you may submit an application and/or petition them on the purpose and need for your proposed activities to improve, enhance, or extend the current roadbed into the ROW; the methods you would propose to carry them out; and seek their approval prior to conducting such activities. The roads within Redstone Ranch Acres Road District are the property of the HOA, and the Road District Committee has the authority decide what appropriate activities within the ROW may occur (as long as they are consistent with Land Use Code guidance), and I would ask for your continued patience while a new quorum of the Road District Committee is formed to provide authorization on activities within the ROW, especially when they are/may be impacting other individuals private properties. As previously stated, you do not have the authorization of the Road District Committee at this time to improve, enhance, or change the existing road bed or conduct such road-building/ road improvement activities in the ROW outside of the current alignment of the roadbed where it may affect other person's private lands. I want you to know that the Road District Committee offers its apologies in how it has not fulfilled the tasks of our positions well with regards to the conflicts between yourselves and Mr. Gluzek, and I deeply apologize for the conflicts and issues that have arisen due to the Road Committees lack of a quorum to address your concerns. If there had been an effective quorum of the Road District Committee, we likely could have avoided much of the current strife between you and Mr. Gluzek, and I will do my best to reestablish the Road District Committee as soon as possible to handle this situation in an open, fair and appropriate setting. Until such time, please stop road improvement activities within the ROW as they impact other person's properties. I would like to keep this situation from degrading any more than it has for all parties involved, and a fair and open discussion in front of a full Road District Committee is the appropriate venue to address your access needs and concerns. Thank you KKwMFw~p~~.=~n=a •~M e,me~d Eric Petterson ,~ ~a~.,~.~~~b~~. Eric Petterson m,~,~,~,.,,.»nam Redstone Ranch Acres Road District cc: via email- Lance Clark Assistant Director, Pitkin County Community Development via email- Temple Glassier, Deputy Director Public Works Mark Gluzek Je.."~.~ PITKIN COUNTY ATTORNEY John M. Ely Courthouse Annex Building cmuiry Attorney 530 East Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christopher G. Seldin Assismrsr County Attorney Tel: (970) 920-5190 Fax: (970) 920-5198 Carrington Brown Code Enforcement Officer June 9, 2008 Mr. Eric Petterson 222 Bobcat Lane Redstone, Co 81623 Deaz Mr. Petterson, Legal Assistonts: Lisa MacDonald lane Achey I am the Pitkin County Code Enforcement Officer and this letter serves as a Notice of Violation for your property located at 222 Bobcat Lane, Pitkin County. I have received complaint that this property is not in compliance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. There aze several allegations, the ones that may have merit aze: 1) Three sheds have been placed on the property. One or more of the sheds appeaz to be placed inside the property line setbacks (too close to the property lines) and Pitkin County Community Development records do not contain evidence of permits being obtained for any of these sheds. 2) A fence has been installed that may not be compliant with the County fencing regulations. 3) A dog is allegedly allowed to run about the property in violation of the March 27, 1997, 1041 Hazazd Review and Conceptual Submission, paragraph 8, stating "only one dog is permitted on the property and the dog shall be kenneled." 4) The septic system was allegedly recently replaced with a dry well septic that was not subjected to a Pitkin County Environmental Health and Natural Resources review and permit. It is also alleged that the driveway and certain sheds aze located over the septic field which would also be a Code violation. To cure this Notice of Violation please take the following steps: 1) Apply for and obtain permits from Pitkin County Community Development for each of the three sheds by July 15u', 2008. The forms aze located at Pitkin County website, including http://www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/7/building-form.pdf and http://www:aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/7/building=permit-instr.pdf. Please be advised that if it zoning staff decides it is not possible to issue a permit for locating the sheds on the property, then they must be removed from the property within 30 days of your being so notified. ,Rlyn,_ 1 ~.,~ " ..; v .z 2) Please make arrangements to meet me at your property to examine and discuss the fencing by June 20a', 2008. 3) Contact Nancy McKenzie at Pitkin County Environmental Health and Natural Resources (920-5070) by June 20a', 2008 to obtain the appropriate review and permits for the septic field and provide her an explanation of the septic field's location relative to the driveway and sheds. 4) Provide explanation of the dog and kennel situation when we meet to examine the fence. If you do have a dog, please be advised that you will be required to adhere to the requirement for the dog to be kenneled. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and I look forwazd to you contacting me at 429-2814 to arrange a meeting at your property. Sincerely, Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enforcement MEMORANDUM TO: Camngton Brown, Code Enforcement Officer FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer DATE: May 23, 2008 RE: Complaints of zoning violations at 222 Bobcat Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres I have reviewed the letter from Roger Sherman dated 5/5/2008 regazding complaints of zoning violations at 222 Bobcat Lane, and offer the following comments. Regazding Pazagraphs #1 and #2. Not enough information (when, where, what) has been offered to determine what "illegal addition" may be out of compliance with building codes. The previous owner, Mr. Hazsh, constructed an approximately 900 sf residence which was CO'd on September 22, 1999. That permit was issued pursuant to the 10/6/97 Hearing Officer approval, and Board of Adjustment 98-04, which granted a 10 foot front yazd setback variance where 30 feet was required. This allowed the single family residence to be constructed 20 feet from the front lot line. This original house did not encroach into the 10 foot setback off the top of slope. In 2002, Mr Petterson received a building permit to enclose an existing porch at the rear of the house pursuant to Administrative Decision 07-2002 and the revised site plan recorded at Book 64 Page 34. That approval extended the approved building envelope to the top of the bank to the northeast of the existing residence in order to accommodate a porch and a gazage. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for this 330 sf addition on Dec 16, 2003. #3 and #4. Matters concerning the septic system should be referred to the Environmental Health Department for further action. As an aside, the Access Permit that was issued for the driveway showed the driveway alignment next to the septic system, not on it. #5 Any structures on this site other than the main residence aze unpermitted by Pitkin County. Since all structures require permits regazdless of the size of the structure, it appeazs that the "shed" and "office" aze violations of Section of the Land Use Code. #6 Not enough information has been submitted regazding the fence (type, height, etc) to determine compliance with appropriate regulations. However, given the sites proximity to wildlife habitat (see below), a wildlife friendly fence is required unless a permit has ~' V l) .J been issued for the fence. Fences less than 6 feet in height can be placed within yazd setbacks, however, development is not permitted within platted right-of--ways. #7 The property is located within mapped elk winter range, and is adjacent to mapped elk winter concentration area, severe winter range and critical habitat and is also adjacent to mapped bighorn sheep winter range, summer range, and overall range. In 1997, Kevin Wright of the DOW stated that the pazcel is adjacent to elk and bighorn sheep winter range, but there is little use within the subdivision due to existing disturbance and homes. Wright notes that the riparian habitat along Kline Creek is valuable to a variety of species and that the lazge ponderosa pine provides valuable perch sites for lazge raptors/owls. Wright recommended that the residence be set back from the top of the slope to limit bank erosion and to preserve the riparian azea, and recommended the following mitigation measures: a) Only one dog is permitted on the property, and the dog shall be kenneled. The kennel shall be constructed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b) Maintain native vegetation outside the building envelope, particulazly the lazge ponderosa pine along the creek. c) The residence shall not extend over the steep embankment down to the creek. d) All trash/gazbage shall be kept in approved bear proof gazbage containers. Since the owners at the time the house was constructed did not have a dog, a kennel was not constructed. If the current pet is not kenneled or leashed, then yes, he is in violation of the Hearing Officer's 10/6/97 approval. p,r~~1C . Page 1 of 3 Joanna Schaffner From: Eric Petterson [eric.petterson@starband.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:31 PM To: Carrington Brown; pmartin@rof.net; Lance Clarke; Joanna Schaffner Cc: jeffbier@masonmorse.com Subject: FW: Petterson property Carrington- I just received this from Jeff Bier, and I am forwarding this onto you for your records. Jeff Bier was informed of the issues I am rectifying with the county before we even listed the property with him. I just got off the phone with Joanna and she was very helpful with my situation, and I will be proceeding with the Board of Adjustments. Joanna indicated that I have to have approvals from them before she can grant any building permits. FYI, there is no active HOA in Redstone Ranch Acres- and if there was, Mr. Sherman would be in violation of a whole host of covenants, as likely would 80% of the subdivision, and the whole subdivision would be stuck in these kinds of confrontations (I've heard that's why it was "disbanded" years ago). Thank you for your help. Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. phone/fax: 970-963-2190 mobile: 970-309-4454 eric~etterson(d)starband. net From: Jeff Bier [mailto:jeffbier@masonmorse.com] Sent: Tuesday, July Ol, 2008 3:19 PM To: eric.petterson@starband.net Subject: FW: Petterson property Jeffrey M. Bier Mason Morse Real Estate 385 Redstone Blvd. Redstone, CO 81623 (970) 963-1061 (office) (970) 963-4238 (fax) www. mountainproperties.com 7/1/2008 ; a ~ , ,' 1, 7 ~~~~y Page 2 of 3 ~ ~ $ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ +r TH£ S~VACE F011 AEA4 ESi AiE From: Roger Sherman [mailto:blueox@hughes.net] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:11 AM To: jeffbier@masonmorse.com Subject: Petterson property Jeff, I would like to make you aware of several land use code issues regarding the Petterson property at 222 Bobcat Lane in Redstone Ranch Acres. The following is information I received from a phone conversation with Carrington Brown, Pitkin County Code Enforcement Officer. 1. The driveway as it is currently is at least partially over the septic system and will be relocated. 2. The front of the fence is several feet into the road right of way and Pitkin County is asking that it be moved back onto the Petterson property. 3. The shed which houses the office was remodeled into an office without a building permit and it is located outside of the required setbacks. It may need to be eliminated or moved and a building permit applied far it. 4. The other shed on the eastern edge of the property is also outside of the required setbacks and partially over the septic system and will be eliminated or moved. Pitkin County is giving the Pettersons about 1 1/2 months to move the fence and address some of the other issues. I am concerned that if the house sells before that then the future owners will be saddled with undisclosed problems and expenses. Many of the above mentioned items are also in violation of the Redstone Ranch Acres Homeowners' Association Covenants. There is also a 10' wide utility easement at the front of the property where no pennanent development shoud occur. As a neighboring property owner, I am concerned about the above mentioned items as many of them have caused the road to be pushed onto our property, caused snow from plowing to be put onto our property, made the road narrower, and has limited our use of the road. I would also suggest that any potential buyer be shown the 1041 Hazard Review plat which shows the setbacks, dog containment requirements, fencing requirements, etc. Also any properly owner is subject to the covenants and should be provided with a copy of those. Full disclosure of these issues to potential buyers is in the best interest of all parties. Thank you for your time. :] ~":.: 7/1/2008 Page 3 of 3 Roger Sherman Blue Ox Logcrafters office: 970.963.3689 cell: 970.618.2610 www. blueoxlogcrafters.com 7/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 i Joanna Schaffner From: Susan Pearson Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:51 AM To: Eric Petterson Cc: Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke Subject: RE: board of adjustment Hi Eric, Since you are decreasing the setbacks that you are asking for; you do nothing. However, be prepared to present and discuss the setbacks you now want with the Board of Adjustment at the meeting on August 7tn Susan Pearson Zoning Officer Pitkin County 970-429-2789 From: Eric Petterson [mailto:eric.petterson@starband.net] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:07 PM To: Susan Pearson Cc: Joanna Schaffner Subject: RE: board of adjustment Susan- it ends up that I can move shed #2 (as depicted in the application) to the back of the lot- which would be in compliance with the front and side setbacks- therefore, I only need to appeal to the BOA for the one larger shed that came with the property- do you want to change the notice to reflect that? Is it ok to do this so late in the process? Let me know what you want me to do, thanks!! Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. phone/fax: 970-963-2190 mobile: 970-309-4454 eric,petterson@starband, net From: Susan Pearson [mailto:Susan.Pearson@co.pitkin.co.us] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:40 PM To: eric.petterson@starband.net Subject: board of adjustment See attached for mailing to adjacent property owners 7/23/2008 . • Page 1 of 2 Joanna Schaffner From: Eric Petterson [eric.petterson@starband.net] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:43 AM To: Carrington Brown Cc: Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke; 'Peter Martin'; Suzanne Wolff Subject: RE: fence violation That sounds wondertull I really appreciate your help! For your info, I still plan to either: 1. Move the fence back to my property boundary, or 2. Remove the fence altogether 3. Remove much of the sod back to near the property line (the neighbor has driven onto the sod and spun his tires since your last visit- somewhat ripping it up- itjust looks bad and I don't want to encourage that behavior by leaving the sod out there... ) What we do with the fence will depend on the desires of whoever buys our house, and on the timing, but regardless- I still plan on having the fence moved/removed by August 3ro per our agreement- it will just depend if it looks like it may take a while to sell our house or not (I still want to keep our dog contained in an appropriate manner if it takes a while to sell our house). Also- I called Joanna this morning and left her a message regarding obtaining appropriate approvals for the one shed that will remain (the other shed will be removed before August 3ro, as we need to put sod down over that section of the leach field by August 3ro... ). Do you think it would be appropriate for the County to let Mr. Sherman (the neighbor who filed the complaint) know that I am working with the County to rectify the issues he raised? I'm hoping that if he knows I am working on this with you, he would be less inclined to take matters into his own hands, as he has with other people's properties in the neighborhood....His number is 963-3689, sorry but I don't have his email address. Thanks again, and take care... Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. phone/fax: 970-963-2190 mobile: 970-309454 eri~etterson @starband. net From: Carrington Brown [mailto:Carrington.Brown@co.pitkin.cc.us] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:10 AM To: Eric Petterson Cc: Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke; Peter Martin; Suzanne Wolff 6/26/2008 ~ ~; ~ i Page 2 of 2 Subject: fence violation Good morning Eric, I have been prompted to reconsider your fence situation and with that goal in mind Com Dev staff and I have taken a close look at the original approvals, Code, etc that would impact fences on the property. It appears to us, and the record appears to support, that the wildlife concerns around your property are focused in the creek area behind the house where deer and elk would be likely to travel, not in the front yard. Consequently, I withdraw the requirement for you to obtain a permit for the fence and you may place the fence anywhere on the front yard of the property including on the property line. The picket fence (which is not wildlife friendly) is allowable as long as it is in the front yard. Please keep in mind that fences within 20 feet of a street comer must not exceed 42" in height. I do not wish to become involved in the neighborhood dispute over the precise location of the private road way right of way relative to your property and fence. However, it makes obvious sense for you to ensure your fence is on your property! Thank you Eric and I hope this bit of news brightens your day! Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enfon:ement 970-029-2814 970-379-6872 !Y fR~~"~~r~ .l J.: .: f~ ~.e 6/26/2008 • • Page 1 of 1 Joanna Schaffner From: Carrington Brown Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:10 AM To: 'Eric Petterson' Cc: Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke; 'Peter Martin'; Suzanne Wolff Subject: fence violation Good morning Eric, I have been prompted to reconsider your fence situation and with that goal in mind Com Dev staff and I have taken a close look at the original approvals, Code, etc that would impact fences on the property. It appears to us, and the record appears to support, that the wildlife concerns around your property are focused in the creek area behind the house where deer and elk would be likely to travel, not in the front yard. Consequently, I withdraw the requirement for you to obtain a permit for the fence and you may place the fence anywhere on the front yard of the property including on the property line. The picket fence (which is not wildlife friendly) is allowable as long as it is in the front yard. Please keep in mind that fences within 20 feet of a street corner must not exceed 42" in height. I do not wish to become involved in the neighborhood dispute over the precise location of the private road way right of way relative to your property and fence. However, it makes obvious sense for you to ensure your fence is on your property! Thank you Eric and I hope this bit of news brightens your day! Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enforcement 970-429-2814 970-379-6872 ~~~"., ,t 6/26/2008 • • Page 1 of 1 Joanna Schaffner From: Carrington Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:52 PM To: Joanna Schaffner Cc: Lance Clarke Subject: RE: Petterson fence Joanna, thanks for checking on this. Petterson has been told to obtain a fence permit from Com Dev as he wants to place it outside his development envelope. I also told him that it needs to be on his property but 1 am trying to stay clear of the debate over the location of the private road right of way. Peter Martin has inserted himself into the fray and is trying to get me/us to drop the fence violation. However, Petterson should be happy to hear that his picket style fence is safe, in the permitted, new location of course. -C Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code En/oicement 970-429-2814 970379-6872 From: Joanna Schaffner Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:35 PM To: Carrington Brawn Subject: Petterson fence After speaking with Suzanne regarding fencing at 222 Bobcat, the fence does not have to be wildlife friendly if it is located along the road and on the upper bench. The real wildlife concerns are down the hill in the back of the house toward Kline Creek. But it should be on his property and preferably not in the road right-0f-way. 6/26/2008 • • Page 1 of 1 Joanna Schaffner From: Carrington Brown Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:38 AM To: Joanna Schaffner Subject: RE: petterson Yes, the fence posts in the road are Sherman's. Pettersons fence is 46" high and also, unfortunately located apparently in the subdivision road right of way. I'm under pressure to ignore the fence location and to let Petterson and the subdivision work it out as a civil matter. Question, his development envelope goes right along the edge of his house and the fence, to be legal, needs to be within the envelope or he needs to get a permit from you. I have required that he get this permit. Do you anticipate difficulties issuing a fence permit? I can provide diagrams of the property to you to help with that decision. If a fence permit can be simply issued then I can deflect the "pressure" to ignore the fence. Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enforcement 970-029-2814 970-379-6872 From: Joanna Schaffner Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:27 AM To: Carrington Brown Subject: RE: petterson I'll have to check on the wildlife situation there. He may be able to go up to 6 feet. So I guess the new fence that was in the road belongs to Sherman?? From: Carrington Brown Sent: Monday, )une 23, 2008 10:25 AM Ta:Joanna Schaffner Subject: petterson Good morning Joanna, Nancy and I met with Petterson last week and told him he needed to move his sheds off of on top of the septic, get permits for the sheds and deal with his yard fence. The yard fence is difficult, as is the whole thing down there is as apparently there's lots of neighbor to neighbor dislike and dispute over exactly where is the (private subdivision) roadway vs property lines. My question for you is, if a fence is located on the property line, which is along this private road, what is the maximum height it can be? I ask because 5-20-100 (e) says the fence must be no higher than 42". Thanks! -C Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enforcement 970-429-2814 9 70.3 79-68 72 '`i~at,"r~C •J,, ,~. 1 6/26/2008 Page 1 of 1 • • Joanna Schaffner From: Carrington Brown Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:25 AM To: Joanna Schaffner Subject: petterson Good morning Joanna, Nancy and I met with Petterson last week and told him he needed to move his sheds off of on top of the septic, get permits for the sheds and deal with his yard fence. The yard fence is difficult, as is the whole thing down there is as apparently there's lots of neighbor to neighbor dislike and dispute over exactly where is the (private subdivision) roadway vs property lines. My question for you is, if a fence is located on the property line, which is along this private road, what is the maximum height it can be? I ask because 5-20-100 (e) says the fence must be no higher than 42". Thanks! -C Carrington Brown Pitkin County Code Enforcement 970-429-2814 970379-6872 6/26/2008 • • Page 1 of 2 Joanna Schaffner ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ From: Eric Petterson [eric.petterson@starband.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:52 PM To: Carrington Brown Cc: Nancy Mackenzie; Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke Subject: RE: Notice of violation agree with your summary as stated below, and agree to comply with those items. Thank you for your time and patience. I will keep you informed as to the progress in remedying those items. Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. phone/fax: 970-963-2190 mobile: 970-309-4454 eric. petterson~starband. net From: Carrington Brown [mailto:Carrington.Brown@co.pitkin.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:06 PM To: eric.petterson@starband.net Cc: Nancy Mackenzie; Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke Subject: Notice of violation Eric, Thank you for meeting with Nancy Mackenzie and me today at your property at 222 Bobcat. This e-mail's purpose is to summarize our observations and the next steps for you to take. 1) The driveway is at least partially on top of the septic field. You have agreed to establish the precise location of the septic field and then remove the gravel from on tap of it and add grass in that area. You will also remove the shed that is located on top of the septic field and intend to remove the shed from the property entirely. Once this is completed please arrange for inspection with Nancy. This item #1 will be accomplished within 45 days from today, August 3, 2008. 2) You have agreed to make application for permits for the three sheds (two, assuming you remove the one shed mentioned in item #1), per my Notice of Violation, by July 15, 2008. Contact Joanna Schaffner of Pitkin County Community Development to deal with the permit requirement. This will be accomplished by July 15th, 2008. „~~ ~f~," ~t vv 6/19/2008 Page 2 of 2 3) You admitted that the picket fei.,,a is not located on your property as it pass.._ along the road in front of your house and agreed to move it so it is on your property. In order to place it outside the development envelope you need to obtain a fence permit from Community Development (contact Joanna Schaffner 920-5105 for details) before moving the fence. This will be accomplished by August 3, 2008. 4) You informed me that the dog remains inside the fenced yard at all times it is not under your direct control; this is a satisfactory arrangement. Thank you far your cooperation in remedying this situation Eric! - Carrington Carrington Brown PiBdn County Code Enforcement 970-429-2814 970-379-8872 ~~~'~i ~~f~~,Q 6/19/2008 • • Page 1 of 1 Joanna Schaffner From: Carrington Brown Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:06 PM To: 'eric.petterson@starband.net' Cc: Nancy Mackenzie; Joanna Schaffner; Lance Clarke Subject: Notice of violation Eric, Thank you for meeting with Nancy Mackenzie and me today at your property at 222 Bobcat. This e-mail's purpose is to summarize our observations and the next steps for you to take. 1) The driveway is at least partially on top of the septic field. You have agreed to establish the precise location of the septic Feld and then remove the gravel from on top of it and add grass in that area. You will also remove the shed that is located on top of the septic field and intend to remove the shed from the property entirely. Once this is completed please arrange for inspection with Nancy. This item #1 will be accomplished within 45 days from today, August 3, 2008. 2) You have agreed to make application for permits for the three sheds (two, assuming you remove the one shed mentioned in item #1), per my Notice of Violation, by July 15, 2008. Contact Joanna Schaffner of Pitkin County Community Development to deal with the permit requirement. This will be accomplished by July 15th, 2008. 3) You admitted that the picket fence is not located on your property as it passes along the road in front of your house and agreed to move it so it is on your property. In order to place it outside the development envelope you need to obtain a fence permit from Community Development (contact Joanna Schaffner 920-5105 for details) before moving the fence. This will be accomplished by August 3, 2008. 4) You informed me that the dog remains inside the fenced yard at all times it is not under your direct control; this is a satisfactory arrangement. Thank you for your cooperation in remedying this situation Eric! - Carrington Carrington Brown Pdkin County Code Enforcement 970429-2814 970379-6872 C3~ ~n~~ ., ., .. ;t 6/19/2008 ~~ ~ 11 ~ c~fi~ai~ /~ -~ ~~ n m 0 m N ~ B n v N B O B B N N G 7 "m D ~~ aam ~~ s~ sg ~> ~~ ~° a jY F ~~o, ~n ~~j ~~ ~~Q ~.J-. ~~Y Q . ~~;~`:30 Variance Request to the Pitlnn C~ Board of Adjustment Utility Sheds Setback Request- 0222 Bobcat Lane Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision Legal Description-Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision No. 3, Pitkin County, CO. Address- 0222 Bobcat Ln. Redstone, CO 81623 Owner Contact Info- Eric Petterson ,(, 0222 Bobcat Ln. f 5 ~ Redstone, CO 81623 ~`'i 970-704-1226 ~~ 970-963-2190 y~ Reason for Variance Request- Lot E-11, while being 0.45 acres, actually has a very small developable area due to steep slopes dropping down towards Kline Creek. This developable azea was permitted for a single family residence of approximately 2,000 sq.ft. which was constructed in 1999. Along with the single family home, a sma1110' x 18' shed with a concrete slab foundation was constructed in either 1999 or 2000. Shed #1: We purchased the property in 2002. At that time Shed #1 (10' x 18') was existing on the property. According to Pitkin County records, a building permit may not have been properly obtained for this shed. This shed extends into the 10 foot setbac_ k` onq _ e side of the lot, by approx~~ ly 1.5 feet as measured from the corner of the shed. If ou inclu a the extended eave o t e s e~t_ hlcely extends into the 10' setback by approximately 2.5 feet. The actually rows is'is approximately 1T from the corner of the shed. road Right of Way (ROW) is 30' wide. The ~~ ~ s • In 2006, we converted the interior of this shed into a small home office. As this shed sits upon a concrete slab foundation, movement of the shed to be fully outside of the 10' setback would likely require demolition of the shed, and a complete rebuild of the shed. This would be a significant monetary hardship on us. Therefore we are requesting a variance to allow this shed to remain as is, which would require a setback reduction for this structure to approximately feet. I #2: As this home is in country, and we azonly have bears in the neign rnooa, we are require y Pitkin County Land Use ode (see section 7-20-70: Wil ' e Habitat Areas) to con trashcans and other items hich may attract bears in a az-proof structure. Therefo we purchased acustom- ilt shed in 2006 to store ;~ trashcans, and other ite The shed is 10' x 12'. We custom-ordered the shed to compliment the building mat '~ shades of green to match the o vegetation. We built a pad for t] realizing that the shed would be Pitkin County informed us 1 the front of a lot, and within 0' ,bf the neighborhood, and painted it ,and to blend in with the surrounding to make the site more visually appealing, 1 view of the road. d was well within the 30' setback from 'de of th ot. We were unaware of the P be le of the ced the shed. In trying to find another ' compliance with these setbacks, the ac field, which is not allowed per setback requirements ' 2 6 when we location for the shed on e property to shed would end up si g on top of the Pitkin County quid ce. Because our lot is constrained topography and other setbacks, ere is no other place on the lot top ce the shed, without infringing u on other setbacks, or the leach fiel We could move the shed a little (a uple of feet), but it would still n be compliant with either the 30' ont line setback, or the 10' side fine shed is approximately 6' 3" from the front lot line, as measured from View of azea between shed E~~iJ~ ~7 ~~ road. r e~(i~„J3 the furthest extent of the overhanging eaves. It is approximately 7'10" as measured from the sidewall of the shed. The shed is approximately 8' frc side of the lot. The shed is approximately 14' from the edge of the road,] ere are five trees~tween the shed and the roadbed. Two of the b re planted by the previous homeowner. I hav included photos of views to the other a 'acent properties. Across the road is a t owned by Blue Ox Logcrafters, d is currently being used to store uipment and supplies associated with log home and woodworking o ation. Up until this winter, it also con ed a lazge tent which housed woodw rking equipment (it collapsed der the snowload and was remov in May). Another property across the roa is owned by Roger & Tamera She (who own Blue Ox Logcrafters). lot contains a single family home. This photo was taken from the s ed, looking towazds their residenc .The home is obscured by a num of trees in the photo. The other adja t property is owned by Mazk Gl zek, and contains a single family ho .This photo was taken from the uszek residence, looking back to azds the shed. The shed is completely obscured by a number of trees and brush. ~e are therefore requesting atc~ariance to the 30' front to allow our shed to imatel 7'10" from t o e lot, and have any other locah"~i to put the shed on the prop shed, as taken from the road. Pitkin County Land Code requirements for stora of trashcans, etc. We have very cazefull orated and designed the shed to be 'sually attractive, and given the prese a of trees, the site is not used for snow sto e. Mr. Gluszak has stated the does not have any grievance with the locatio f the shed, and he is th my property owner immediately adjacent to the shed. er pro 'es are separated by the existing 30' wide Bobcat Lane roadwa without still being in - violation of setbacks and/ or leach field requirements, our only other option would be to get rid of the shed, but then we would not be in photo of compliance with other Directions to Property- head south on Highway 133 to Redstone, go past the southern Redstone exit approximately 1.5 miles and turn left into Ranch Acres Subdivision. Turn right at "T" in road. Turn right at 3-way intersection, go over small bridge, up steep hill, and 0222 Bobcat Lane is house on left with picket fence- house has "0222" on front. Notification sign will be placed on tree next to Shed #2. Adjacent Property Owners- Mark Gluszek 0234 Bobcat Ln. Redstone, Co 81623 Robert & Betsy Wedemeyer 0381 Bison Ln. Redstone, CO 81623 Blue Ox Logcrafters LLC PO Box 644 Cazbondale, CO 81623 Roger & Tamera Sherman PO Box 644 Carbondale, CO 81623 Lazry & Pamela Dupper 72 Alpine Ct. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ~~;);~~s ,. e ~ •r Highway 133 3 10' Setba ! C : i 76" ~ ~~ ~ Shed #1 f`• •~ W O ~ Appro~dmate location of top of steep slope • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l:O Home ~ ~ ~• ~ ~~ ~qaa` O 3~ Se BLUE OX LOGCRAFTERS LLC 10' Selba 8 feet x T10 GLUSIEK MARK G WE 5 0 3 6 12 18 24 30 Feet ~~~~ fv N WE S RUSSELL KATHRYN b LINDSAY WEDEMEYER ROBERT 8 BETSY PETTERSON ERIC S 8 ANGELIQUE P ~~ BLUE OX LOGCRAFTERS LLC ~. GLUSZEK MARK G SHERMAN ROGER E 6 TAMEf2A M RTAG U JOHN 25% INT EGLER JOAN H TRUSTEE OF 0 510 20 30 40 50 ®Feet LxNI~rT ~ v~ H ghway 133 S" ~ ®® a° ~-: 10' Setba S m 0 ~~e° a : $° ~ .- ~ Shed #t ~o@ 'at. ' ~~ o ~ 0 W o~ ' ~ Approximate location of top of steep slope ~ ,.r 2 `{, ~ ~ @ ~ (0 ~~' ~ Home ~JOo c ~, .~g ~ ~ ~ cY- BLUE OX LOGORAFTERS LLC 10' Setba Sh feet H / } ~ T GLUSZEK MARK G w ,(~ E ~~ 7~ / ~Y4 S 0 3 6 12 78 24 30 Feet „~a Joan Ziegler 0251 Bobcat Lane Redstone, CO 81623 (phone)970-963-9620 Board of Adjustments Pitkin County Community Development 8/5/08 Dear Members of the Board, I have owned property in Redstone for well over twenty years. During that time I was fortunate to have the Petterson family as my neighbors on Bobcat Lane. I still spend my summers on Bobcat Lane and am writing you to support their request for a variance on a shed that was on their property before they even became the owners. I am aware of the existing needs of the road. Never has this shed created any hardships on us in our travels up and down Bobcat Lane, even during times of heavy snowfall. I have always liked the charming nature of the shed in question. I can think of no reason whatsoever that the Pettersons should be denied their request for a variance. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions. Thank you, (/ Joan Ziegler °.i~\~.ivV EDIE AND GARY EN6sTROM 031 1 BOBCAT LANE REDSTONE, CO 81623 (970)963-9620 Pitkin County Community Development Board of Adjustments 8/6/08 Dear Board members, This letter is written in reference to a variance request by our neighbor Eric Petterson. We reside at 0311 Bobcat Lane. We have lived at this location for twenty years and are well aware of the road width and setbacks necessary in order to facilitate access. The shed being considered has been in its current location for probably 30 years and was built by an owner previous to the Pettersons. Never has the shed in question created any problems. It is well off of Bobcat Lane and has never imposed on anyone's access, nor has the shed created any difficulty for snowplowing or the depositing of snow so as not to impede access. We plow snow during the winter months for individuals throughout the Crystal River Valley and know a "problem spot" when we see one. We challenge anyone to prove a legitimate hardship created by the Petterson shed. We feel it necessary that the Board members know the real reason that Pitkin County ever even took issue with the shed in question. Anyone looking at the shed would know immediately that its location is appropriate; however, many of us living in Redstone Ranch Acres subdivision No. 3 have been greatly troubled for many years by a vindictive neighbor. This neighbor took issue with The Pettersons when Eric, serving as a member of the Ranch Acres Road District, was forced to respond to the contentious neighbor over his inappropriate behavior on road related issues. Since that time the neighbor has done everything in his power to hurt the Petterson family. It has been extremely difficult and upsetting to watch this play out over the past several months. These hateful people forced Pitkin County to put the Pettersons in the position that brings them before you with regard to this variance request. Undoubtedly they have objected to the issuance of a variance. We urge you to overlook their complaints, as they are completely false and maligned. We urge you to support this variance and help put an end to this injustice. Please know that the Pettersons have in no way influenced our position with regard to their shed. That Shed is FINE! Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~-r- Edie Engstrom i~y~~ Gary Engstrom ~~;.;39 Eric Petterson From: rhanula(r~msn.com Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:03 PM To: eric.petterson~starband.net Subject: Variance -Pitkin County BOA August 5, 2008 To: Board of Adjustments Pitkin County Community Development Dear Sir or Madam: Pag My name is Robert Hanula and I live at 1424 Bobcat Lane, Redstone CO. I understand that the Pettersons have petitioned for a variance with respect to a shed structure that is within the 30 foot setback. I travel past this shed almost daily since I live up the hill from the Pettersons. I am familar with the existing needs of the road width and setbacks given that I have been ayear- round resident at 1424 Bobcat Lane since 2004. The shed has been there since I have been coming to our property for the past 9 years. Given the kx_ation of the shed in relation to the current road, the shed does not pose a problem for access or snow removal. I am not opposed to the Board's granting the Petterson's request for a variance from the 30 foot setback and allowing the shed to stay where it is. Thank you, Robert Hanula Robert Hanula, Attorney at Law, (970) 704-9665 DO NOT FORWARD WITHOUT PERMISSION. This a-mail transmission (and the attachments, ff any, aaompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any forwarding, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal under the law. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply a-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission. 8/6/2008 l3 vi . ~' ZJ 8/4/08 Pitkin County Boazd of Adjustment C/O Joanna Schaffner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 I am protesting the variance application requesting yazd setback adjustments for two "sheds" submitted by Eric Petterson at 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, Colorado. My concerns are as follows; 1. According to the BOA requirement list, a survey is required. There was no survey done to show the proposed setback from the road right of way and therefore it is not known if the measurements shown in the application are correct. Surveyors were onsite on 8/1/08 after the application was submitted, sign posted, and notifications mailed. I do not know what they surveyed, but if this survey is used for the variance application then the hearing should be cancelled and the application should be re-submitted, as the distances in the proposed setbacks surely would have changed, therefore substantially changing the information in the mailed notification. In addition, did the applicant take into account the roof overhang of the office building ("shed 1 ")? What I observed when looking at the conditions was that the office building was just a foot or two from the road right of way, not 7 foot 6 inches. 2. A hardship must be demonstrated. According to Joanna Schaffner, monetary hardships do not apply. There is no other hardship that can be demonstrated as faz as I know. 3. The office building ("shed 1") for which they are requesting a setback variance is situated over a utility easement. This easement currently contains a water line and in the future will be used for underground re-location of power lines and phone lines. It will also be used for future cable ty and intemet utilities and unforeseen future technologies. The applicant needs the owner of the utility easement to sign off on any encroachments. The Redstone Ranch Homeowners' Association owns the easement and the easement was put in place before any utilities were constructed for the above mentioned future utilities. The Redstone Ranch HOA currently does not have any person who has the authority to sign off on this encroachment. Several homeowners are currently in the process of re- instafing a HOA boazd. Until then, it would be impossible for the required approval or disapproval. In any case, this building should not be situated over a utility easement 4. Although the BOA does not enforce HOA covenant restrictions, the BOA does recommend HOA approvals for covenant setback encroachments. Again, there is currently not anyone with the authority to enforce the setbacks specified in the covenants. '1lA~j.'G'~ J V V Yr y 5. The variance requested for the office building ("Shed 1 ") requests a side yazd setback. According to Joanna Schaffner, this is actually a front yard setback requirement. A 7 foot 6 inch setback where 30 feet is required is an extreme and unnecessazy encroachment. This also substantially changes the proposed setback information in the mailed notification and the hearing should be cancelled and the application re-submitted. 6. The office building ("shed 1") has an un-approved driveway leading to it. This causes vehicles pazked there to be in the road right of way, making it difficult for snow plowing operations and depriving other homeowners their rightful use of the road. Please refer to the attached picture showing the office building with a vehicle pazked in the road right of way. Remember that the road right of way goes beyond the visible road. This road right of way needs to be preserved and open for snow plowing and all other rightful uses. 7. "Shed 2" is at least partially over the septic field and is in violation of Pitkin County Environmental Health codes. This shed has been moved but if the applicant is still proposing a shed for this area then it should be denied as it violates the land use codes regazding buildings placed over septic fields. The removal of this shed also substantially changes the information in the mailed notificafion. 8. These proposed setback variances cause a "substantial detriment to the public good" by pushing these uses further towazds the road, which causes traffic and snow removal to be pushed further away from the applicant's property and onto my property. I had written concerns regazding the original house setback variances, stating that the originally proposed 10' setback for the house would cause the road and all uses of the road to be pushed further and further towazd, and onto, my property. My feazs came true as the original owner put sod, trees, and other landscaping into the road right of way and installed "shed 1" into the setbacks, then the current owner put a fence and more landscaping several feet into the road right of way, put shed 2 into the setbacks, etc. Now all snow from plowing is deposited on my property and the traffic is pushed onto my . property. Ina 30' right of way, it is currently impossible for two vehicles to pass because of all these encroachments. I ask that these variance requests be denied in order to protect my property and to preserve all homeowners' rightful use of the road ri¢ht of way and the utility easement. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Roger Sherman 233 Bobcat Lane Redstone, CO 963-3689 J~:;~! 8/4/08 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment C/O Joanna Schaffner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 I am protesting the variance application requesfing yard setback adjustments for two "sheds" submitted by Eric Petterson at 222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, Colorado. My concerns are as follows; 1. According to the BOA requirement list, a survey is required. There was no survey done to show the proposed setback from the road right of way and therefore it is not known if the measurements shown in the applicafion are correct. Surveyors were onsite on 8/1/08 after the application was submitted, sign posted, and notifications mailed. I do not lmow what they surveyed, but if this survey is used for the variance application then the hearing should be cancelled and the application should be re-submitted, as the distances in the proposed setbacks surely would have changed, therefore substantially changing the information in the mailed nofificafion. In addition, did the applicant take into account the roof overhang of the office building ("shed 1 ")? What I observed when looking at the condifions was that the office building was just a foot or two from the road right of way, not 7 foot 6 inches. 2. A hardship must be demonstrated. According to Joanna Schaffner, monetary hardships do not apply. There is no other hardship that can be demonstrated as far as I know. 3. The office building ("shed 1 ") for which they are requesting a setback variance is situated over a utility easement. This easement currently contains a water line and in the future will be used for underground re-location of power lines and phone lines. It will also be used for future cable tv and intemet utilities and unforeseen future technologies. The applicant needs the owner of the utility easement to sign off on any encroachments. The Redstone Ranch Homeowners' Association owns the easement and the easement was put in place before any utilities were constructed for the above mentioned future utilities. The Redstone Ranch HOA currently does not have any person who has the authority to sign off on this encroachment. Several homeowners are currently in the process of re- instating a HOA board. Until then, it would be impossible for the required approval or disapproval In any case, this buildine should not be situated over a utility easement 4. Although the BOA does not enforce HOA covenant restrictions, the BOA does recommend HOA approvals for covenant setback encroachments. Again, there is currently not anyone with the authority to enforce the setbacks specified in the covenants. 5. The variance requested for the office building ("Shed 1 ") requests a side yard setback. According to Joanna Schaffner, this is actually a front yard setback requirement. A 7 foot 6 inch setback where 30 feet is required is an extreme and unnecessary encroachment. This also substantially changes the proposed setback information in the mailed notification and the hearing should be cancelled and the application re-submitted. 6. The office building ("shed 1") has an un-approved driveway leading to it. This causes vehicles pazked there to be in the road right of way, making it difficult for snow plowing operations and depriving other homeowners their rightful use of the road. Please refer to the attached picture showing the office building with a vehicle parked in the road right of way. Remember that the road right of way goes beyond the visible road. This road right of way needs to be preserved and open for snow plowing and all other rightful uses. 7. "Shed 2" is at least partially over the septic field and is in violation of Pitkin County Environmental Health codes. This shed has been moved but if the applicant is still proposing a shed for this area then it should be denied as it violates the land use codes regazding buildings placed over sepfic fields. The removal of this shed also substantially changes the information in the mailed notification. 8. These proposed setback variances cause a "substantial detriment to the public good" by pushing these uses further towazds the road, which causes traffic and snow removal to be pushed further away from the applicant's property and onto my property. I had written concerns regazding the original house setback variances, stating that the originally proposed 10' setback for the house would cause the road and all uses of the road to be pushed further and further toward, and onto, my property. My feazs came true as the original owner put sod, trees, and other landscaping into the road right of way and installed "shed 1"into the setbacks, then the current owner put a fence and more landscaping several feet into the road right of way, put shed 2 into the setbacks, etc. Now all snow from plowing is deposited on my property and the traffic is pushed onto my property. Ina 30' right of way, it is currently impossible for two vehicles to pass because of all these encroachments. I ask that these variance requests be denied in order to protect my property and to preserve all homeowners' rightful use of the road rieht of way and the utility easement. Thank you for considering my concems. Sincerely, Roger Sherman 233 Bobcat Lane Redstone, CO 963-3689 1 Responses to Sherman letter: The following are responses to Mr. Sherman's comments and concerns regarding the Request for Variance for an existing shed at the north end of the property, as quoted from his August 4, 20081etter. 1. According to the BOA requirement list, a survey is required. There was no survey done to show the proposed setback from the road right of way and therefore it is not known if the measurements shown in the application are correct. Surveyors were onsite on 8/1/08 after the application was submitted, sign posted, and notifications mailed. I do not know what they surveyed, but if this survey is used for the variance application then the hearing should be cancelled and the application should be re-submitted, as the distances in the proposed setbacks surely would have changed, therefore substantially changing the information in the mailed notification. In addition, did the applicant take into account the roof overhang of the office building ("shed 1")? What I observed when looking at the conditions was that the office building was just a foot or two from the road right of way, not 7 foot 6 inches." Res onset An improvement survey was produced by Lines in Space Engineers on June 12, 2002, and this certified survey shows the shed and the property boundary. This 2002 survey was used in the development of the application; therefore the distances stated in the application are accurate and re-submittal is not necessary. The overhang of the roof was disclosed in the application, and the variance request includes the roof overhang. " 2. A hardship must be demonstrated. According to Joanna Schaffner, monetary hardships do not apply. There is no other hardship that can be demonstrated as far as I know." Response: As per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, (section 2-40-110), by reason of unusual narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property, or by reason of unusual topographic conditions, a request for variance from the 30'front yard setback is appropriate due to steep topography. The developable area of the property is limited by a slope of 67% (38°), whereby pushing the shed back 30' from the front lot boundary would be off of this slope, onto a portion of the property that is not accessible, and would also put the shed in the floodplain of Kline Creek. The house on the property has a 20' setback as well, due to this 67`% slope. Moving the shed back to be compliant with the 30' setback would definitely be a hardship due to the 67% slope. " 3. The office building ("shed 1") for which they are requesting a setback variance is situated over a utility easement. This easement currently contains a water line and in the future will be used for underground re-location of power lines and phone lines. It will also be used for future cable TV and internet utilities and unforeseen future technologies. The applicant needs the owner of the utility easement to sign off on any encroachments. The Redstone Ranch Homeowners' Association owns the easement and the easement was put in place before any utilities were constructed for the above mentioned future utilities. The Redstone Ranch HOA currently does not have any person who has the authority to sign off on this encroachment. Several homeowners are currently in the process of reinstating a HOA board. Until then, it would be impossible for the required approval or disapproval. In any case, this building should not be situated over a utility easement." Response: The easement does not contain a water line. The water line from the well passes underneath the shed, and does not follow the utility line. As per comments from Holy Cross Energy (Phyllis Wittet, Utility Technician II, Engineering Department, 8/6/2008), Holy Cross does not have any current or foreseeable plans to bury their overhead lines, or run cable tv or internet lines through this easement. If Holy Cross does want to bury their overhead powerlines in the utility easement, then it is the responsibility of the homeowner to vacate/move any improvements which may hinder their operations, if these improvements cannot be avoided by Holy Cross. Full disclosure to any buyers of this is required, and this disclosure has occurred (Mason & Morse contract, June 2008). Holy Cross does not have any issue with the shed given the overhead line only powers 5 homes, and clearing trees and vegetation from the utility easement and burying the overhead lines is prohibitively expensive and not warranted at this time. Holy Cross Energy is the entity which holds the easement, not the HOA (P. Wittet, Holy Cross 8/6/2008). The Redstone Ranch Acres HOA has not been staffed for approximately 20 years, and no activities within the subdivision have had HOA review since that time, including any homes built, remodels, uses of property, etc. The HOA approval process is irrelevant for this shed, as well as any other activities within the subdivision at this time. "4. Although the BOA does not enforce HOA covenant restrictions, the BOA does recommend HOA approvals for covenant setback encroachments. Again, 2 there is currently not anyone with the authority to enforce the setbacks specified in the covenants." Response: The HOA has not been staffed for 20 years, and this application is fully consistent with Pitkin County requirements. Other activities within the subdivision have occurred without HOA approvals in the past 20 years without review and were deemed to be appropriate by Pitkin County requirements. Review by HOA is not required or possible at this time. "5. The variance requested for the office building ("Shed 1") requests a side yard setback. According to Joanna Schaffner, this is actually a front yard setback requirement. A 7 foot 6 inch setback where 30 feet is required is an extreme and unnecessary encroachment. This also substantially changes the proposed setback information in the mailed notification and the hearing should be cancelled and the application re-submitted." Res once: Pitkin County Staff indicated that the notice does not need to be resubmitted, and that the issues presented by the 67% slope will be fully disclosed and discussed at the hearing. "6. The office building ("shed 1") has an un-approved driveway leading to it. This causes vehicles parked there to be in the road right of way, making it difficult for snow plowing operations and depriving other homeowners their rightful use of the road. Please refer to the attached picture showing the office building with a vehicle parked in the road right of way. Remember that the road right of way goes beyond the visible road. This road right of way needs to be preserved and open for snow plowing and all other rightful uses." Response: Parking a vehicle in this place is fully legal. The existence of gravel here has been in place since the house was built. The issue of a "legal driveway" was presented to Carrington Brown, Code Enforcement Officer on August 7, 2008, and he did not feel there was a code violation issue with the gravel and parking of the small car. The current road alignment has been in place since this area was developed in the mid 1960's (50 years). Given that the road "right of way" is 30' wide along Bobcat Lane, there are many vehicles which at times are parked within this "right of way", including Mr. Sherman s. If increased use of the road due to increased traffic necessitates widening the current roadbed, then the Road District has the authority to widen the road as necessary, at which time any trees, brush, rocks, or other natural barriers would also need to be cleared. Any vehicles would also need to be moved, for obvious reasons. The car shown in Mr. Sherman s photo was not parked there this past winter- it was stored in a shed, and snow plowing was not impacted whatsoever. Trees and other vegetation are the actual determinants of the useable road width, not the shed. "7. "Shed 2" is at least partially over the septic field and is in violation of Pitkin County Environmental Health codes. This shed has been moved but if the applicant is still proposing a shed for this area then it should be denied as it violates the land use codes regarding buildings placed over septic fields. The removal of this shed also substantially changes the information in the mailed notification." Response: Shed 2 was moved on July 29th, and no shed is being proposed for that location. Pitkin County Staff indicated that re-notification is not necessary. "8. These proposed setback variances cause a substantial detriment to the public good" by pushing these uses further towards the road, which causes traffic and snow removal to be pushed further away from the applicant's property and onto my property." Response: The shed is fully on my property, and is approximately 15 feet from the current roadbed, leaving plenty of room for snowplowing and removal. The property across the road from the shed is actually owned by Dr. Larry Dupper of Glenwood Springs, not Mr. Sherman. The road is within its 30' "right of way', and does not cross over onto Mr. Sherman s property. Traffic has been within the platted roadway for 50 years, and continues to be within the right of way, and is not on Mr. Sherman's property as he falsely contends. "I had written concerns regarding the original house setback variances, stating that the originally proposed 10' setback for the house would cause the road and all uses of the road to be pushed further and further toward, and onto, my 4 property. My fears came true as the original owner put sod, trees, and other landscaping into the road right of way and installed "shed 1" into the setbacks, then the current owner put a fence and more landscaping several feet into the road right of way, put shed 2 into the setbacks, etc. Now all snow from plowing is deposited on my property and the traffic is pushed onto my property. Ina 30' right of way, it is currently impossible for two vehicles to pass because of all these encroachments. I ask that these variance requests be denied in order to protect my property and to preserve all homeowners' rightful use of the road right of way and the utility easement." Response: I have removed all improvements from the road with guidance and acceptance from Pitkin County Community Development. However, "all snow from plowing is deposited on my property" is inaccurate and is not true at all. The snowplowing contractor does not collect snow from my property and pile it on Mr. Shermans property. The plowing contractor will use areas free of trees and other impediments to opportunistically pile snow, including areas on my property, as well as Mr. Sherman's, Blue Ox Logcrafters', Mr. Gluszek's, and Dr. Dupper's. Mr. Sherman, who owns a skidsteer, often expands the plowing done by the contractor, and deposits snow on his, and other persons properties (without their consent). He has even piled snow on my property (with my permission and blessing in the past), and Mr. Sherman as well as other homeowners and the snowplowing contractor have pushed snow off of the steep bank on my property next to the road, as it's a good place to dump loads of snow as the lower bench on my lot is inaccessible and does not have any improvements. Mr. Sherman s claim that the roadbed is infringing on his property is completely inaccurate based on a survey conducted in 2008 by Lines in Space, and visited by Carrington Brown, Code Enforcement Officer on August 7, 2008. So his claims that the road is infringing on his property is incorrect. The reason that two vehicles cannot pass by each other is more due to existing large trees and vegetation, rather than "infringements". This shed is 15 feet from the current edge of the current roadbed, and is completely on my property, and is not adjacent or even across the road from Mr. Sherman's property. Further, the shed is not even parallel to the road- its only one corner that is about 8' from the road, with the bulk of the shed extending away from the road. Mr. Sherman s property is separated from the shed by approximately 40 feet and pushing the shed further from the road would be impossible given the slope break that starts next to the shed. The shed also has a concrete foundation, and moving it would require total demolition. ((>> 5 ii YJ ~ ~i ., ~>_~ AGENDA PTTIQN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:30 P.M. Commissioner's Meeting Room Please note the revised meeting date. NEW BUSINESS: 09-2008 John Snyder (represented by Dan Harris) Lot 34, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision Aka 379 Draw Drive Proposing a 9 foot tall driveway retaining wall to be constructed in the front yard setback where a maximum height of 6 feet is allowed. The request is fora 3 foot height variance. The pazcel contains 1.03 acres and is zoned R-30. 10-2008 Eric Petterson Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres Subdivision No. 3 Aka 0222 Bobcat Lane Requesting a 2.5 foot front yazd setback variance where 30 feet is required to permit an existing shed. The parcel contains .45 acres and is zoned AR-10. 11-2008 Pitkin County (represented by Alan Richman) Crown Point Communications Site Top of Stone Road Proposing construction of a 60 foot high communications tower where a maximum height of 40 feet is allowed. The request is fora 20 foot height variance. The parcel contains 15,000 square feet and is zoned RS-30. MINUTES: Please review the minutes of the July 1, 2008 meeting. PLEASE CONTACT JOANNA AT 920-5105 TO CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE Couuty of Pitkio } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING } ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE State of Colorado } THE PITHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly swortr, deposes and says as follows: I, ~L1Z t~t'77L:l1vrJ ,being or representing an Applicant before the Pitlcin 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 3J day of u ~w 2(1 8 to the day of L~Vr~6T -~ , 20 oa (Must be posted for at least uiue (9) full days before the heating date). l Applicant's Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of W~o~2o~by C-r~~ -~~1}~.r~YJ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires: ~ o~ _ ~ ~ -G~~ Z7 .VI ,ALP, ~ ~ ~~.~ CL~C,/ U Notary Public's Signature DASD N~U~ 13 ~ ~arlG~~a ~~ Address ~ f~ j ~ r ~~ ~~. (~ ` M'Rit'lik QAN~N PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Front and Side Yard Setback Variances for Lot E-11, Redstone Ranch Acres, Subdivision 3 Aka 0222 Bobcat Lane (Case 10-2008) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 7, 2008, to begin at 5:30pm, or as soon thereafter as the conduct of business allows, in the Commissioner's Meeting Room in the Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, to consider an application submitted by Eric Petterson, requesting front and side yazd setback variances for 2 sheds on a .45 acre pazcel in the AR-10 zone district. Shed #1: Requesting a 7 foot 6 inch side Yazd setback where 10 feet is required on this .45 acre pazcel in the AR-10 zone district for an existing shed. The variance from standazd is 2 feet 6 inches. Shed #2: Requesting a 6 foot 3 inch front yazd setback where 30 feet is required AND an eight foot side yazd setback where 10 feet is required on this .45 acre pazcel in the AR-10 zone district for an existing shed. The variance from standazd is 23 feet 9 inches for the front yazd and 2 feet for the side yazd. The State Parcel Identification Number for this property is 2729-293-04-011. For further information coritact Joanna Schaffner at the Pitkin Community Development Department, (970) 920-5105. Pitkin County Boazd of Adjustment Published in The Aspen Times on Pitkin County Account No. 002.02 +~a n ,~v,~U PITKIN ~UNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL,MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00026264 Name: Rocky mountain Ecological Serv Date:7/2/2008 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED Type: check # 1248 Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0008.2008.PBOA PP- Board of Adjustment Fee Total: 568.00 568.00