Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.08.13I~~~iJlI~I~I~T'I' ~~~'C2~J~ TIIIS FILE MAY ®R MAY NOT CQNTAIN .4L]?. (3F THE INFQRIFBATIQN LISTED BEL(3i~' IN TIIE FQLLQYJING ®ItI3ER Snfnanar,~ Sheet 1Zesolution for the BOCC anel/or P&~, ®rclina~nee for the BQ~CC and./or PAZ I9eter~ination f®r the 1-learing ®ffacer Administrative IZeterFnination Staff Memo Applicati®n Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, It.eferral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) .,, iJ ' ?~,~Paul 8 Linda Sturz Richman i,,', 8/6/2008 ~~,~,i1;.t~Y,F'?~5,~~1 ~ . , ,' BOA08-13 PtNR:~~ E'f1!P: Setback $7EPS:r- C/$/2; Pound Ridge, NY PHN: G$/Z: Aspen, CO 81612 PHN 920-1125 _. FEi~$ FtGVq. " ~~ ~r DUE:~..._ a:'~ FtCsYBQdY Nb1lCER ~~~~~~09/09/OB boa yes 8/31108 OATE OF FlNAh AC7lON: 9/9/2008 ?_ ~~ ~ ~= `-ai i~ •: -xBOA #13-2006 #554016 Eden #BOA08-13 . -~::~. _., , ...'. {~. : . RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR PARCEL 6, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH Resolution No. 13 -2008 WHEREAS, Paul and Linda Sturz, owners of Pazce16, Sopris Mountain Ranch, aze requesting two Rear Yard setback variances where 50 feet is required to construct a new single family residence and gazage; and WHEREAS, the pazcel contains 52.16 acres and is located in the RS-30 zone district; and WHEREAS, the property is more fully described in Exhibit A; 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 hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfaze 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' and a 37.5' Reaz Yazd setback variances be granted per the plans submitted (Exhibits B and C) due to topographic hazdships. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolufion 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: September 9, 2008 The Boazd of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: / oanna S. Sch er, date Ric Head, date County Zoning Officer Co-Chairperson Parcel ID# 2465-283-01-004 RECEPTION#: 554016, 11!03/2008 at 03:48:59 PM, 7 OF a, R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkia County, GO ~J00~?(i~ o-~3~I i ~. L=X~, ~,~- ~- PROPERTY DESCRIP770N PARCEL N0. 6 (PER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND LOTLINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT) A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF TRACT 77 AND BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 28, MORESFUL 8 DE~S/CR/BEDNAS FOLLOWS.• OBEGINNING AT/ACPOIN~ONIDGNE 1621 OF SA/DL !S THENCE S pg£~SEE., 273,36 FEET;~ATNENCEBSA60S 318485 W E1666.004FEET,•T THENCE N ff' 45' W, 277.46 FEfT; THENCE EAST 55.87 FEET,• THENCE Nj 18• p9' Zf" E. 70.37 FEET,• THENCE N 20' 03' 07" E. 94.5~FE£T,• THENCE N 32' 55' 40" E. 50.06 FEET,• THENCE N 40' 15' 00" E 135.66 F£ET,• THENCE N 30' S7' S7" f. 53.93 FEET TD THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT--OF-WAY UNE OF THE COUNTY R~GHT, THE CHORD OF ~ CH BEARS 3 65852 34' W. 27.29 FEET,•AOJ~ENCE ~ TO THE S 68' Ol' 00" K: 45.40 FEET,• THENCE 81.26 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 298.15 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 60' 12' 30 W 81.0 THENCE 107.38 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF FEET THENCE S 52' 24' 00" W. 14.81 FEET,' A 404.32 FOOT RADIUS TO THE RIGHT, THE CHORD OF WFlICH BEARS S 60' 00' 30" E. 107.06 FEET,' THENCE S 6T 3T 00" W. 49.55 FEET,• THENCE N 59' 29' 26" W., 82.59 THENCE SE81' 49' 00" £•, 638.31 FEET,•87HENCE N OOC20' 00'~~ 997.92 fEET'•54 F£Er THENCE S 85' 29' 00" E. 966.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 52.09 ACRES MORE OR LESS (49.17 t ACRES LESS COUNTY ROAD R.O. W.)• EXCEPT 60 FEET R1GHT--OF-WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD, CONTAl~~2 ACRES ~~Ej:;Ci2 :'TIVIT~" ENVEI~F'E & SITE PLAN REV V .4 P.9RCEL OF LA.h"D SITU. D IN TRACT 77. SECTION 28 _ F° _ 6 „ow TOW7vSHIP e SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN. + ~ _ i~~ ON BEAR/NC 5 BS 34 Z9" E ~ ~. ~ °K ®a ~°' ~"~f` ~ ~q ~~° ~ . . ~ .setsruy "yy y /J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~N .i j' i~~ `~ / - ~~ m~ .-' ^, ,, ,, ~~~ ~ ^ ,~,.~., SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CML CONSULSANS - - - ~ J \~ ..~.~ ~,~y ._~.. ~(_ mss' ;oe ,- - ~a 1,1 ^~. ..~ '~®E9~~OJ ~x~~~~~ ~ ~. ~~ MINUTES of the September 9, 2008 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Meeting Members Present: Jim Rifkin Jamie Brewster-McLeod Patrick McAllister, Co-Chair Rick Head, Co-Chair Michael Cooper Members Absent: Bob Throm Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer and acting secretary Susan Peazson, Zoning Officer and acting secretary Head opened the meeting at 5:30pm. CASELOAD: Case # 11-2008 Pitkin County -Communication Facility Crown Point -Top of Stone Road Land use planner, Alan Richman and project manager, Donald Mitchell were present to represent the applicant in the request for a) a 36.5 foot Height variance, b) an 11 foot height variance and c) an 11 foot height variance, where a maximum height of 40 feet i~ allowed, to erect three cell towers on this 15,000 squaze foot lease pazcel in the RS-30 zone district. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Richman showed the Board a site plan of the 100' x 150' lease pazcel surrounded by BLM lands. The site consists of a narrow, flat bench which drops off precipitously on all sides. The existing facility is 750 feet from the last house on Stone Road. The site can be seen from Emma and Sopris Creek Road. He explained that this site has been a communications site since the 1960's. Today, there are four towers 50 - 60 feet tall and a 120 sq ft, old building. Cell phone, radio, TV, and 911 service all rely on these facilities. The County needs to replace and update all of these facilities with three new modem towers and a new support building. Richman showed the Boazd photo simulations of the proposed facilities and how the towers would look when viewed with the naked eye from the valley floor between CitiMazket in El Jebel and Emma. This plan has been approved by the BOCC and is ®ij~_,~~J supported by the EmmaBasalt caucus. A height variance is necessary to accommodate multiple users to comply with the county's requirement to co-locate. He pointed out that the 40 foot height limitation is not a limitation from the Area and Bulk requirements of the Land Use Code, rather it is established in the Cell tower section of the code, and was intended to be a limitation that would be compatible with surrounding residential development. Rifkin asked if there were any objections in any of the previous heazings. Richman responded that the EmmaBasalt caucus supported the application because of the important nature of the facility, and Stone Road home owners also supported the application. Rifkin made a motion to approve the application due to the narrowness and steepness of the site. Cooper seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0. Case #12-2008 Elk Mountain Lodge, LLC Rooney Circle FKA 10800 Castle Creek Road Due to a conflict of interest, McAllister excused himself from the room and will abstain from voting on this application. Tom Newland was present to represent the applicant in their request fora 3.5 foot Height vaziance where 6 feet is allowed within the Front Yard and Major Road setbacks to relocate a driveway. The parcel contains 52 acres and is located in the AR-10 zone district. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Newland explained how the former lodge is now asingle-family residence. He distributed photos of current conditions and explained how the existing driveway is hidden from the approach on Castle Creek Road. The plan is to abandon and revegetate the existing driveway and relocate it to create better site distances. The proposed location has a man made depression, or perhaps a ditch, and a 2:1 slope where the county road drops off to the site. The applicant wishes to eliminate the 2:1 slope and make the slope more gradual. Also, by raising the grade, the driveway will be at the same level as the road for the first 20 feet, which is also a county code requirement. This will necessitate a variance on the downhill side of the driveway where re-grading will exceed the 6 feet allowed by the code. Newland submitted the amended land use approval to the Board. Cooper stated that he did not see any negative impacts with the request and made a motion to approve the application due to unusual topographic conditions. Brewster- McLeod seconded the motion, and it passed 4-0 with McAllister abstaining. Od0'.',OG McAllister re-entered the room. Case # 13-2008 St~rtz, Paul and Linda Parcel 6, Sopris Mountain Ranch West Sopris Creek Road Alan Richman was present to represent the applicants in their request fora 22.5 foot Reaz Yard setback variance and a 37.5 foot Reaz Yard setback variance where 50 feet is required on this 52.16 acre parcel, to construct a residence and a detached garage respectively, due to a physical hardship. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Michael Doyle vas present representing a neighbor, but did not speak. Richman presented to the Boazd a site plan showing how the subject site is bisected by the County Road. Most of the lot is a lazge open meadow below the road. The 1.2 acre building envelope is on the opposite side of the road and was chosen to preserve the open meadow (a requirement of the HOA) and to meet the county requirement that the house not break the skyline as viewed from West Sopris Creek Road. He stated that the HOA supports this location. McAllister made a motion to approve the application due to topographic conditions. Rifkin seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0. Case # 14-2008 Barnhardt, George 1000 Dorais Way Redstone The applicant was present to request a 30 foot Front Yazd setback vaziance where 30 feet is required on this 2.22 acre pazcel in the RS-30 zone district. Pearson corrected the acreage indicated on the agenda. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Pearson relayed messages from neighbors, Hall and Engstrom. Peazson spoke with Hall, who stated that he did not think a house constructed on the front lot line would look awkward and not be consistent with the neighborhood. He asked for more information and more review. Schaffner received an email from the Engstrom Family Trustee, Nicholas Ziegler, who has not had an opportunity to discuss this with the Family and felt that they did not have enough time to evaluate the request and asked that the case be tabled. Schaffner added that two neighbors called and reported that they didn't get their Public Notice until today because one was out of state and the other was on vacation. McAllister` asked staff if Public Notice was made in an adequate way, to which Schaffner responded yes. The Board concluded that if the proper procedure was followed the application should be heazd tonight. Bumhazdt showed the Board a site plan depicting a long, narrow lot adjacent to the Crystal River. The distance from the building envelope /front lot line to Dorais Way is 54 feet; providing a natural setback from the road. The building envelope on the lot is pushed forward to keep development off of the steep slope that drops down to the river. The remaining building envelope is 26 feet wide. McAllister asked if this building envelope was approved by the County. Yes. The 1041 approval will expire in November. Rifkin made a motion to approve the application due to unusual topographic conditions. Head seconded the motion. Brewster-McLeod pointed out that the variance should be for the house alone, since the garage appeazs appropriately set back. The vaziance should not be for the entire length of the lot. Rifkin amended his motion to state "for the house alone". When measured, the overhang of the gazage extended into the 30 foot Front Yazd setback. Pearson noted that the Public Notice was made for the house, not the garage. Riflcin amended his motion to include the garage overhang. He made a motion to approve the application due to unusual topographic conditions as per the plans submitted. seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Case # 15-2008 Stanwood Metropolitan District 121 Stewart Drive Stanwood Subdivision Architectural designer, David Panico, and attorney, Paul Taddune, were present to represent the applicant in their request fora 71 foot Front Yazd Setback vaziance where 100 feet is required on this 34 acre parcel in the RS-20 zone, to construct an office building for the District. Panico explained that although a Public Notice sign was posted for the review of the building envelope, a sign was not posted for this Board of Adjustment meeting. Schaffner stated that the case cannot be heazd without proper notice. Taddune stated that the applicant wished to "get into the ground" as soon as possible and asked the Board if they would hold a Special Meeting as soon as posting could be completed. After discussion, and since there would be no October meeting, Rifkin made a motion to table the application to Thursday, September 25 at 5:30pm. Rifkin, Cooper, and Head thought they could attend, Brewster-McLeod could not, and McAllister was not yet sure. Cooper seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Case # 16-2008 Olson, John 1444 Lower River Road AKA Lot 2, R&O Subdivision Head explained that he had a conflict of interest in this application and left the meeting. The applicant was present to request an 82 foot Front Yazd setback variance and a 32 foot Collector Street setback variance where 100 feet and 50 feet respectively are required on this 24.88 acre parcel in the AR-10 zone district, to allow three existing loafing sheds to be permitted. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this application. Olson apologized and said that he didn't know permits were required for these structures when he built them one year ago. He explained that he has received other variances to develop a house and barn within his building envelope, which is a narrow bench between Lower River Road and a slope down to the Roazing Fork 100 year floodplain. He stated that the corner of the existing barn is only 19 feet off of the edge of the pavement. He showed a site plan and photos of the site and existing sheds, noting that they don't look good because "we had to stop work". The sheds are approximately 5 feet outside of the building envelope and were located to protect the horses from wind and sun. The sheds could be moved into the envelope, however, the corner posts are poured concrete. Also, if the sheds were moved to within the envelope, it would create an azea between the shed and the fence that would be dangerous for the horses. Riflcin expressed that he found this a difficult decision since the structures aze already constructed. It's not so much a topographic hardship as it is a financial one to remove them. McAllister asked if the Boazd would have been likely to approve the variance had it been requested prior to the sheds being constructed. Brewster-McLeod measured the setbacks and showed the Boazd that almost the entire building envelope is located within the 100 foot setback. Brewster-McLeod asked for staff's opinion. Schaffner responded that it was not appropriate for staff to comment; the Board needed to detemune if a hazdship existed. Discussion ensued. Schaffner stated that if the variance is approved, the envelope still had to be amended, but the envelope needn't be amended if the variance isn't granted. In terms of process, staff opted to send the applicant to the Boazd prior to amending the envelope. McAllister made a motion to approve the request due to topographic hardships. Rifkin seconded the motion, but disagreed that the haz~ship was topographic. Brewster-McLeod said that she would approve the request if the building envelope were changed. Rifkin did not see any detriment to the public, but was also troubled by the structures being outside of the building envelope. This was a threshold he couldn't cross. Olson requested the Board table the application until the building envelope was amended. McAllister made a motion to table the application to Monday, November 3, 2008, at 5:30pm. (Riflcin cannot attend.) Brewster-McLeod seconded the motion, and it passed 4-0, with Head abstaining. MINUTES: There were no minutes to review from the August meeting. There being no further business, Riflcin moved to adjourn the meeting. McAllister seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. **********x*******t*****m**a**************z*************s**********mx*s* Respectfully submitted, Joanna Schaffner, Acting Secretary Date 'ck ead Co-Chair ~ - I~-~ l Date ~~?~~)'"'1J DATE ~` I0° °$ PITHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Application Form REPRESENTATIVE ~~'p`"` R``~~'`'`""'^'^ E-MAIL {~c.(1.~c.~n~nn.... .C SagR.~S. hc"~ `~ao- \~a S FAX qa° -\laS MAILING ADDRESS Qj a'~ 3io \~j ~3 st,.. ~~V .z OWNER QAo~ AV.p L...on S-~~2z PHONE MAILING ADDRESS b _AJ~~m+. Q4Xye \o..\.. ~ ~ loo s 'l b LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ hP-~-r~ ~ S o p P-~5 `Mo.~. ~ * ~ ~ R-r+~ t1. SUBJECT PARCEL ADDRESS '(~o'^e ~sc~~~co PARCEL ID # ~ `I lr S a$ ~j 9 ~ o a ~\ ZONE DISTRICT LOT SIZE 5 a • \ (, SIGNATURE QS-3n (To be completed by the Zoning Department) CASE #_ / ~- ~~ Requesting: ~ Rear ~ 22' S 'T'rent Yard Setback Variance, where h~ ' is re uired. q ~ 3~.5~ ' Reaz Yazd Setback Variance, where ~ ' is required. ' _ Side Yazd Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' _ Side Yazd Setback Variance, where ' is required. 'Height Variance, where _' is allowed Comments: ~~ -{tea CC'Yl~i^ u -f~ ~~} ~-~ ~ rP ~ I d F to P _ Application filed 8 (~ v g Refer to Date of Meeting R q Notices Mailed Zoning Official~~,A t ~ (f'Q Secretary C~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Rear Yard Setback Variances for Stun Parcel 6, Sopris Mountain Ranch (Case 13-2008) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 9th, 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 Boazd of Adjustment, to consider an application submitted by Paul and Linda Sturz, 6 Autumn Ridge, Pound Ridge, NY 10576. The applicant is requesting a 27.5 Foot rear yazd setback (2.5 feet of which is overhang) where 50 feet is required for the construction of a residence and a 12.5 foot reaz yazd setback (2.5 feet of which is overhang) where 50 feet is required for the construction of a gazage. This requires a 22.5 foot variance for the residence and a 37.5 foot variance for the detached garage. The pazcel contains 52.16 acres and is located in the RS-30 zone district. The State Parcel Identification Number is 2465-283-01-004. For further information contact Joanna Schaffner at the Pitkin Community Development Department, (970) 920-5105. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Published in The Aspen Times on August 31, 2008 Pitkin County Account No. 002.02 t 1 4 County of Pitkin } } ss. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 2-20-100 (3) and (4) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first class, U.S. Mail to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the as day of ~" h u ~'~ , 2008 • The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners were those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the mailing. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (so it was seen 20 which was at least from the nearest public way) on the "''~- day of ~M ~'t ~ ~ to the public hearing. A photograph of the posted sign is attached nt) Signature Signed before me thisaY of 200~by ~~ ~~~~ WITNESS MY HAND My commission expire; U( SEAL Notary Notary Public's Signature • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Rear Yard Setback Variances for Sturz Parcel 6, Sopris Mountain Ranch (Case 13-2008) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 9th, 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 Paul and Linda Sturz, 6 Autumn Ridge, Pound Ridge, NY 10576. The applicant is requesting a 27.5 foot rear yard setback (2.5 feet of which is overhang) where 50 feet is required for the construction of a residence and a 12.5 foot rear yard setback (2.5 feet of which is overhang) where 50 feet is required for the construction of a garage. This requires a 22.5 foot variance for the residence and a 37.5 foot variance for the detached garage. The parcel contains 52.16 acres and is located in the RS-30 zone district. The State Parcel Identification Number is 2465-283-01-004. For further information contact Joanna Schaffner at the Pitkin Community Development Department, (970) 920-5105. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Published in The Aspen Times on August 31, 2008 Pitkin County Account No. 002.02 LIST OF ADJACENT OWNERS Invercauld LLC 1177 West Loop South #1725 Houston, Texas 77027 James and Gay F. McGuckin P.O. Box 82578 Albuquerque, NM 87198-2578 Hans E. and Jill E. Roeschel 150 Spring Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 Sopris Mountain Ranch HOA, Inc. c/o Gay Lewis 1802 County Road 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 Bureau of Land Management 0375 County Road 532 Rifle, CO 81650 ~0(~"'7 N N ~~ ~~ ~"~ ~r~z~ ~~;;~~17 PARCEL No. 6 SOPRIS P~MOUNTAIN RANCH A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF COUNTY 70F PPI`KIN NSTATEI OF COLORADO HIP 8 .SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. SHEET 1 OF 1 - w ~ 1-A IIACBL BOU1'lDd1Y CORK TYlS IAM ISZa a9 seta' w ~/ iOUNDdRI dINI TIBId A2.R wACrn ropWepf,TRW ~f a 9Ans ~ "~? 9,'!!tP• R ~ mvo Iws ar aut; ca. ~` - wa a~ m trLB aRae d a/ E .sd AI. p. 9aC/ 11 °°Y M9aVl IaM1Sf n -. saor cs pae rum ~ ~~ J, - , • iOP <04flY MO IE /RG IfA9RD aSIAM2 ~ ' QC' -~-~- w ~~ .-~- maeeaAe<w. - d ~ ~ N /I~FEIS' ~ FlSGM4'.PMO M 9]T . F ~ I RYM HN aODP.tS GV H I I u. a-auc~Rr s Ire/'id• ~ I PIRGfi 6 ~' I)a869NIET MM. IK1 mSPRiB.51AY 3EeY JdTJ,9T / 12RIq 42 S2/pw ROd RN ' I C'OJI11 BdP yasswaJ•.vurov sa'm[m. rasa rtarav 9mmv aR N.LB. D M9S fl LAAIR AR'MM: LFSM'I('ID'f ileERV 1~ /4NH Y(/fSM.1FA1- ~ I ;{y1~: Sap 4Yif MY/IY RICIPAFafO IY(aO IASS GPAp AFKY NC R6MI D Awfwsnt mnnASOVm Ia>a xsl Bas cae aRnv-uma maav $ d ~ Ar16I0pMV!/A/. ! ~ /s•e ,m / saro lax ao 0uss ua qp G. p IMAUIm ' ~~ E A3 81823 10 YtQ1116 PL55 P/OY1 /TRAIYRSOO°fU"/ FF A6 aIf1EY IAPIl 6(.Va db/.' Me16 WAC/ )/ I/O AAIO MK [CG )H1 M 4CRN 14 IOM9i05%M1 2WYNI6/lT KIPI M2YK Y%(IK aAp PAAB KYJY RISYP[SEQT Af /dIO6 EVNU.A1 A MVI M (/£ I-S6SW AACIIIYMF Ai. 16aAO MCIPLV6 waa~NN"A-f~E6la~m~ DBIF~MII'tT M'Y pypg5 p.9pT¢MYW C([1VIY.WW (WftM1- 2DA AGE$ IU1' M.lEtt K/KCA(f [P/A(S (AW IeIS Ot fL4 } I ON 92 RTf81GTd I HlBdBY SLM }HIT fHIS ffi80I1881R SBRrR Ida PAPPIRPD BY SOPRIS dAD1Ndd8/RC, ud:. POR PIOL 819188. BP; III% 3. BSC68& lS. if89f.4 - OM'1'.mrs yeYOR' YRT//l ~ 8 D8P031d8D TIDS _ WT OP ID9l, dT 8. p }ffi PIIffi!-. pOUNPY ADQ dDR INPORwrfO.YIL IJND SD8T8Y P[d1S HABBR ReCfPIION NUYBdR BT: PIITR.000NTY 3HRrdYOp mrs: PB.WC B/pORBATION:. SBLT/ON td, fbNNSHV d SOUfB. RIBfd n nsr. aP 18E ere Px. STURZ A m 0 W N LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING U {9.23 SSp'{5'14'W l2 ]SJ6 336'3P33'E !3 120.Q N53'33'11" L{ EQ39 N1116k9'E Lfi 100.29 N6l'{9'{t'W L6 {1.30 SOSl0Y9"W TIVITY ENVELOPE & SITE PL A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN TRACT 77, SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN. SHEET ] OF 1 nrs Acmem aceaa9f A 9N NM ~cr ws azfx rfic.m AAa APPao~an Ar x mrHAAn AEWtOVNr uscir ms _ oAr a 2wg AID ¢ DRECr m Aa.ASmAnN: aEIDwArov Nn IWmnom As Igmnan Aa mroAwrr afNIroN;Nr ow<rro RE W 6oA3wc rase vsucx NOpi1TY YAP N.i.S. m p0'An W9n: WNH uvexN foxsr \\ i0 Y~fLSW P/SS ', i PMi/ wesfrnacmaProv by Ars sNNr A /AgYL LE INO 19C <M) ff )HALT )).a'U JH AM @TC' (LGID N S2"MN ffi AAwvF n .vIM HA.NY SI LSI a' IK AA/ f9TPN IAE9OM[ SADIM.Z[5K'rENELY(G¢~pASfp(4\S- nvwaL UAeuvrw uc l-2 R'SAD ewc)nwxr AV. o*sAn WA4'))J ffAH.SSN'N'L+'E S%IH IEEE MMSS9I'IY RYE I}6Mf£E1 RfM258Y J/'IS"II660I /F£A AO.IFNII'95'O)'I fAi1PAVC 6O IEWt-R'-NAY fd DiNIYRtlt4 MIIANM 291J ALK$ YRT M (fE Kt ApCA(Y EpG(5 IIIIB) K7E Ri l(SS WI£S I/ 4A2 5 9RNY.' S9A]HH ]IOI. ~RA26NLPMAARf YAM(d1M IJ AIID'TAEAWNL AYAOW'6SBI'HY E4IYFEV M1MYE Mv) 2 MALI ))A RY/O IHN 6D B]AA 4V MN N2YF fort I. Auer n A suw ron ev aus ca? a) &a9S z DEW n>t A aul ¢m Ni<L D'S OBgRVAnM xelp ESG&IDID M IMIO M flEVAMN ff AI6.]6'W frclx I9N QO 9E/II Ntl WLSS CAV. K 9WL 1J ALANIYfMF16C R4HfD LT 9pW pxpyc n_ _ Arouaxr Anwowmus mAr I~ryc xAS ~ xor9m Ar Pnex rnAlrc a nE DosrtH¢ a<-DOr51HA9A=.o A9ur rxAr Arr a Nrtcr AW aHA=rHIr Aw ANr 9AamW.ulrs No AE usE ND xppAHLYIIFHEOL. AE xMN9D16 AEY IQDMIli6 LO NOT N N!( WY.EgI1E pt •RY IIMi M NEAS GI19'IE IF OE4i1AhO GVISMNID NEAS WLL DI4fN11EE SNE1Y IF NIT MOI£AIY. ~~~)`,~ - SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC A.~.L,on«N,~f.=nEax~,W,.N,~A~AD~PR~x~.NxAWR„~~t„~ CIVIL CONSULTANTS ~~ ~ RH,r ~^ ~ mraA~, Ha oA. ~ Sig x xAr 80191 PA6 AT 6®nlx 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ~ .°.+m°_xOOe.rer x i'"ia'°'iN~'"'~'. ~ ~ CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 1x evN H..,.. NVN1 (970) 704-0311 D~Aro xmmmlown W__„_~ Vic` ~~a ~: ax ~® rx nv. Ir. Susan Pearson From: Alan Richman [arichman@sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:44 AM To: Susan Pearson Subject: Sturz Setback Variance Susan The architect for Sturz said we should ask for 30" for the overhang, just to make sure. So please add 2.5' to the variance request. Thanks! 1 ~~~F~,~~ ~~ l~u~~vlt~2 ~ 6"ax 3673 ~4afeec, eoCoaada 81612 August 4, 2008 ~ea~uucuy .Sezuiced ~kwee/'>tax (970f 92a 1725 aucl~xa.c@,a7ru¢.,cet Ms. Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR PARCEL NO. 6, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH Dear Joanna, This is an application for a variance for Parcel No. 6 of the Sopris Mountain Ranch. A complete legal description of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit #1. The application is being submitted by the owners of the property, Paul and Laura Sturz (hereinafter, "the applicants"). A letter from the applicants authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to submit this application on their behalf is attached as Exhibit #2. The applicants request a variance to reduce the rear yard setback for the property from 50' to 30' for the proposed residence and from 50' to 15' for the proposed garage, to allow development to occur within the recently designated building envelope. Amore complete description of the proposed variance follows below. Background The subject property is zoned RS-30, which has a minimum lot size of 30 acres. It contains approximately 52.16 acres of land, making it a conforming sized lot of record. It is vacant, as shown on the attached improvement survey. The vicinity map and improvement survey show that Parcel 6 is an irregularly shaped lot that is located along West Sopris Creek Road, approximately 3.5 miles west of the intersection of West Sopris and East Sopris Creek Roads. The lot is split by West Sopris Creek Road, with the vast majority of the lot being located to the south of the road. This area of the lot is a broad open meadow that makes up a significant part of the entry image for Sopris Mountain Ranch. This meadow is located immediately past the common ranch buildings and main entry to the Ranch and is considered by both the County and the Sopris Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association to be important open space that is inappropriate for development. J €~ !,!''~ ~' Ms. Joanna Schaffner August 4, 2008 Page Two The remainder of the lot is located to the north of West Sopris Creek Road and is separated into two distinct areas. The more western of these areas is where the original building envelope for Lot 6 was located. It is a moderately steep hillside area. The applicants submitted an application to Pitkin County in 2006 seeking to develop a house within that approved envelope. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners denied that application, finding that any development within the approved building envelope would break a ridgeline as viewed from West Sopris Creek Road. As part of the denial, County staff identified a second area to the north of West Sopris Creek Road that might be better suited for a building envelope. This area is a small, relatively flat natural meadow, bordered by a dry gully. There is an old building foundation present in this area from a structure that was once located here, demonstrating that the area has previously been used. The applicants submitted an application to the County for Activity Envelope/Site Plan Review for this site earlier this year. The Community Development Director just recently approved that application pursuant to Administrative Decision 70-2008 (see Exhibit #3). The site plan illustrates how the applicants intend to develop the property. It shows that the approved building envelope is quite small (1.2 acres in size) considering that the entire property is in excess of 52 acres in size. This envelope is also rather modest when compared to the original envelope designated for Parcel 6 (3.79 acres) and when compared to other envelopes in Sopris Mountain Ranch, some of which are 5 acres or more in size. The site plan also shows that the approved building envelope backs up against the rear property line for this lot. The land beyond this line is owned by the BLM. The site plan also depicts the proposed improvements to the envelope. The house and garage are proposed to be located to the rear of the approved building envelope, with the septic field placed below the structures so sewage can drain to the field by gravity. The well would be located on the other side of the envelope to meet separation requirements. There are several reasons for locating the structures as shown. First, the applicants would like the house and garage to be placed as far back from the road as possible, to ensure some privacy for their family and to minimize the impacts from the adjacent road. Given the fact that the applicants own in excess of 52 acres of land, have been denied the opportunity to locate their home anywhere else on this lot, and have no neighbors to the rear, the applicants believe this is a reasonable place to site their house. A second reason for the proposed location is to ensure that the house will not break a ridgeline as viewed from West Sopris Creek Road. A visual simulation of the proposed house has been prepared, showing that the house will not break a ridgeline as viewed from the road. The applicants have agreed to limit the height of the house to just 21' to the mid-point of the roof where 28' would typically be allowed by the Code. ~, s Ms. Joanna Schaffner August 4, 2008 Page Three During the County's review of the activity envelope and site plan application, a County staff member and the applicant's representative went to the site and placed a height pole within the envelope, near the center of the proposed house footprint, intended to simulate the proposed height to the peak of the pitched roof. The staff member drove along the road looking at the pole and found that while it did not break a ridgeline, it appeared to be within a few feet of the ridgeline. We concluded that if the house were moved forward in the envelope, toward the road, it might well be perceived to break the ridgeline due to the angle at which an observer would look at the structure. This exercise verified that the location chosen for the house and the height limit voluntarily placed on it by the applicants would prevent it from breaking a ridgeline as viewed from the public road. Response to Code Standards Section 7-10-030 (c) (2) of the Land Use Code provides the standards by which the Board of Adjustment considers applications for variances. This section provides that the Board may grant variances: "Where, by reason of unusual narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of enactment of the regulation, or by reason of unusual topographic conditions or other situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation would result in peculiar practical difficulties to, or undue hardship upon the owner of the property... ". In order to grant the Variance, the Board is also required to find that the relief can be granted to the applicant: "Without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Code". With respect to the first standard, the applicants believe there are unusual situations or conditions causing practical difficulties or hardships for the owner. These unusual situations and conditions have been described above, and include the fact that although this property is over 52 acres in size, the vast majority of the lot has been found to be inappropriate for development. The County and the Homeowners Association will not permit a residence to be developed in the open meadow to the south of West Sopris Creek Road and the County has found the area where the building envelope was previously designated to be inappropriate for development due to ridgeline penetration. The only place where a residence will be permitted to be developed is in the unusually small, irregularly shaped envelope that has been designated along the northern boundary of the lot. The best location within this envelope to ensure that the house and garage will not break a ridgeline is toward the back of the envelope, which places the structures within the rear yard setback. Ms. Joanna Schaffner August 4, 2008 Page Four With respect to the second standard, we have provided you a copy of a vicinity map that we have prepared using the County's GIS. It shows that the rear property line is completely surrounded by BLM lands. There are no houses anywhere proximate to the rear side of the proposed house, and there will be no surrounding neighbors who would perceive or be impacted by the reduced rear yard setback. In fact, placing the house to the rear of the property will minimize its impact on neighbors by increasing its setback from the public road. This location will also ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code by avoiding any skyline penetration by the structure. Conclusion 1 have attached all of the other materials you require to process this application, including the completed application form, the list of adjacent landowners, the drawings documenting the variance request and the application fee. Thank you for your assistance while this application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES .~~M Alan Richman, AICP °~~?~':si~~3 EXHIBIT #1 pARCEL NO. 6, SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH, ae shown on "th21i01993ainrPlat Review k Lot Line Adjustment more rarticul rlyudescribed.as follows: Book 30 at Page 29 and being P A parcel of land being part of Tract 77 and being located ir. Section 28, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Principal t4eridian. Said parcel is more"fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on line 1-2 0£ said Tract 77 whence A.P. ~ of said Tract 77 hears S BS°54' E, 346.04 feet; thence S 09°15' E, 1273.36 feet; thence 5 60°31'48" W• lthence NelB°38h50"eWN 2905`'1 W, 277.46 feet; thence East 55.87 feet: thence N 01°09'21" E, 70.37 feet; thence N 11°02'55" W 49.35 feet, feet; `.hence N 20°03'07" E ~135~66efeetththence N230°57o57E E 53b93 feet; thence N 40°15'00" E, Road; thence feet to the Southerly right of way line of the County 27.30 feet along the arc of a curve of a 365.37 foot radius curve to the right, the chord of which bears 5 65°52'34" W, 27.25 feet; thence S 68°O1'DO" ~~, 45.40 feet; thence 81.26 feet along the arc of a 296.15 foot radius cur"echenceeS152°24t00'cW~ri4~81wfeet;bthence 60°12'30" W 81.01 feet; the 107.38 feet along the arc°of a 404.310^006 feetllsthenceeSr6g°37'00" chord of which bears S 60 00'30 E, 82,59 feet; thence N 40°23'02" W, 49.55 feet; thence N 59°29'26" W, W, 233.06 feet; thence N O1°38'98" W, 450.54 feet; thence S 81°49'00" E, 638.31 feet; thence N 00°20'00" B, 997.92 feet; thence S 85°29'00" E, 966.72 feet to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITICIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ~ ~ +~ `~ ~ ~ ~ (' ^7 zinlS l lnea e0£' L l 90 9Z des q d :6g6'79L-DLE EXHIBIT #2 Mr. Mike Kraemer, Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: STURZ APPLICATION FOR ACTIVITY ENVELOPE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Dear Mr. Kraemer, We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as our designated representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for our property, Lot 6, Sopris Mountain Ranch, in unincorporated Pitkin County. Mr. Richman is authorized to submit an application for activity envelope and site plan review for this property. He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with Pitkin County staff and the County's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the land development application. Sincerely, /~~ -!' ,,C~l,~~.`~ V', JV /,, Paul and Laura Sturz 6 Autumn Ridge Pound Ridge, New York10576 EXHIBIT #3 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMIJNI"I'Y DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITHIiV COiJNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE STURZ ACTIVITY ENVELOPE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Administrative Decision No.~~-2008 RECITALS Paul and Laura Sturz ("Applicants' have applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado ("Director") for Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review for construction of a single family residence, a detached garage with a bathing facility, and associated residential development. ]. The application was received after July 6ih, 2006 and therefore is reviewed under the 2006 Land Use Code. 2. The property is caned RS-30, contains approximately 52 acres, and is conforming in size. 3. The lot is identified as Lot 6 of Sopris Mountain Ranch. PIDN: 2465-283-0]-004 (Legal Description, Attachment A). 4. Lot 6 is part of a conglomerate ]041 Hazard Review for Sopris Mountain Ranch pursuant to BOCC Resolution 91-171 (Reception No. 348646). The Lot is currently undeveloped. The Applicants have an approved envelope for the pazcel, however a residence cannot be constmcted within this envelope without obstnrcting a ridgeline as viewed from West Sopris Creek Road. Subsequently the Applicants have submitted this request to establish a new envelope. 5. Staff has wnducted a site visit and found the request to avoid all constrained areas. All development will avoid slopes > 30% and a gulch west of the proposed residence. The proposed residence and garage has been setback 40' in accordance with an engineering report by Sopris Engineering, LLC dated March 26, 2008. The residence and garage have been designed and sited so that they will not obstruct a ridgeline as viewed from West Sopris Creek Road. The bathing facility within the garage is an approved use pursuant to section 4-30. O50(a) of the Code and the Applicant has shown compliance with this section. 6. The Emma Caucus, Sopris Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association, and Colorado Division of Wildlife all commented on the application. All were in support with some conditions. 7. The Director finds that the request is consistent with the applicable sections of the Land Use Code. APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions: The Applicants shall adhere to al] material representations made in the current or prior applications or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. No calculations for height, bulk, setback, size, floor area, or any other building and zoning requirements have been conducted. These requirements will be considered at the time of building permit review. Structures represented in the application might not be permitted under building and zoning regulations. 3. The Applicants shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan with an Activity Envelope in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30.20(8) and Application Manual Section 2.1.12. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The site plan shall be recorded prior to submission of any building permits. The site plan shall show all locations of all development including locations for the septic field, well, and structures. °J li 1.~i~. ~)1 RECEPTIONtt: 551568, 08!01!2008 at 12:09:27 PM, 1 OF s, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 4. At the time of building permit submittal, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director that shows all landscaping within the approved envelope. The landscape plan shall also address condition # 17(c) of this Decision. 5. No structural development, with the exception of fencing, in excess of 30" shall occur within the setbacks of the Lot. Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any external development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment This approval does not insure approval of any subsequent vaziance requests. 6. The residence shall utilize earth tone colors and non-reflective roofing. 7. The residence is exempt from Growth Management up to 5,750 square feet of floor area. 8. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, that ensures only one dwelling unit exists on the Lot. This deed restriction shall be submitted at the time of a building permit submittal and recorded prior to issuance. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit application, the Applicants shall: A. Complete a fireplace/woodstove registration form with the Community Development Department, if necessary. B. Obtain a stormwater permit from the State of Colorado if site disturbance exceeds one (1) acre. C. if necessary obtain a County access/driveway/turnaround permit acceptable to the Basalt Fire Protection District and County Engineer. D. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. AlI slopes steeper than 2:I shall utilize erosion control blankets. E. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the County Engineer showing the locations of staging, material storage and employee and construction traffic parking. F. Pay the applicable road and employee housing impact fees. G. The Applicant shall provide proof of a legal water supply. H. The Applicant shall submit for a septic permit with the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department for septic construction. 10. Defensble Space Re-planting of vegetation shall adhere to the following: A. No more than 3 coniferous trees may be planted within 30' of a structure. 8. Vegetation around the house shall be kept to less than 6" within 20' of the structures, aside from irrigated (orbs and grasses, clumps greater than l0' across of shrubby species (sagebrush) are not allowed. C. Installed or native landscaping within 10' of the house should not contain any brushy species- only grasses or forbs are allowed. Flammable mulches (wood chips) are not allowed within 2' of the house. Aspen trees are allowed near the house, as tong as they are not within 10' of the sWcture, and are kept limbed to [ 0' (unless the trees are Tess than 10' tall). No trees of any species may be within 15' of any window. D. Within ] 00' of the home, shrubby species shall be thinned to 30% of the current aerial coverage. This thinning can occur in an aesthetically pleasing manner and designed by the land owner or their representatives. E. The property owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the above listed vegetation requirements. 11. Access A. No shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveway. Aspens are permitted within 10' of the driveway, but must be pruned to 6' above the ground. B. Low vegetation (grasses, forbs and low shrubs) shall be kept mowed to less than 6" within 10' of either side of the driveway. a§~t~l~~~'O .:t ~U - Z OrJ6" M D. A 30 foot drivable surface inside fuming radius or a hammerhead or other T-tum area should be available at the homesite. E. The driveway/access road shall enter the roadway (West Sopris Creek Road) at a 90° angle for the first 25 feet of the driveway. 11. Water Supply for Fire Safety A. All structures greater than 5,000 square feet in size shall be required to install in house sprinkler systems that meet the standazds of the local fire protection distrM and the IBC. At building permit submittal, the Coca] fire protection district may require smaller structures to be sprinkled due to hazard considerations, emergency access difficulties and lack of proximity to fire protection services. 12. Roofing Materials, Roofing Vents and Projections at and Below Roof Line 1. General Roofing Standards A. All roof coverings shall be constructed of a Class A roof assembly, and if the roof has less than a 3:I2 pitch, then the roof covering shall be noncombustible. B. No wood shakes or shingles. C. Roofs with less than a 3: ] 2 pitch shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris- D. Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch shall not have protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets. E. Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted Building Code. F. All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshall prior to submittal of a building permit application. 13. Roof Venting A. Attic, soffits and other roof venting shall be ofnon-corrosive metal mesh with maximum'/.-inch openings. 14. Decks, Decking, Cantilevered Floors, or Other Projects Below the Roofline: A. Any porch or deck or projection shall be void of vegetation below it, and areas below such projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetation materials by placement of a vegetation barrier covered with rocks or gravel, or by coverage with concrete or stone. B. An alternative for a deck or porch is use ofnon-flammable hardscaping (flagstone, cement pad, etc.) that is at least 18' wide. Some planters may be in this area, but cannot contain trees (except aspen) or shrubby species. C. Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed. D. Stilt foundations shall be fully enclosed. I5. Maintenance and Miscellaneous Requirements A. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. B. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash and flammable debris. C. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from any structure. D. Weeds and grasses within the ten (] 0) foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height of not more than six (6) inches. E. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from the structure (except during the winter months). F. Swimming pouts and ponds shall be accessible by the local fire district. G. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. H. Wood fences shall no[ connect to other structures. 1. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground within an approved container. J. Propane tanks shall be buried, if possible, or installed according to NFPA 58 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any aboveground tank. Any wood enclosure azound the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for two (2) hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. K. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten (10) pound ABC fire extinguisher. °~ (~ i J ;„ ~o-~~ ~ i L. Addresses shall be clearly mazked with two (2) inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on anon-combustible surface. M. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements ofhe Basalt Eire District. 16. The Applicants shall comply with the following general conditions regarding wildlife: A. Manipulation of vegetation outside of the Activity Envelope is prohibited. B. Mesh or woven wire fences are prohibited outside the Activity Envelope except hay storage. C. Wood rail fencing shall employ three (3) rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed fifty four (54) inches in height above ground level, and twelve (12) inches in width (top view), and shall have at least eighteen (18) inches between the lower two (2) rails. D. Wire fencing must be three (3) strands or less. The top wire should be atwelve-point-five (12.5) gauge twisted barbless type at a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. The middle strands (which may be barbed) should be located a minimum twelve (12) inches apart and from the top wire preventing entanglement when mule deer jump over. The bottom strand should be sixteen (16) inches from the ground. E. Fruit bearing trees and shrubs shall be prohibited within the Activity Envelope. This does not include pre-existing native trees and shrubs. F. Access shall be provided to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for trapping, tagging, studying, or otherwise managing wildlife. G_ Trash/garbage shall be kept in an approved bear resistant container or enclosure. These containers shall be accessible to and use at all times by contractors on site. H. Bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, shall be hung away from any deck or window, and be at least ten (l0) feet from the Bound suspended between two (2) trees or posts- All seed feeders shall include a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. 1. Construction dogs are prohibited on site. J. Pet food shall be stored indoors t 7. The Applicants shall comply with the additional wildlife conditions: A. Wildlife fencing shall not extend pas[ the gulch to the west ofthe residence; B. BBQ's should be securely stored indoors or thoroughly cleaned; C. A landscape plan that reasonably screens the residence from the winter range to the north shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. l8. No development shall occur outside the approved activity envelope with the exception of vegetation removal necessary to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures described above. No structures shall be permitted outside of the approved building envelope. Applicant shall be required to obtain an Earthmoving Permit for any work outside the approved envelope. 19. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or other construction activity, the Applicants shall stake the corners of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around the construction site within the perimeter of the building envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 20. All areas disturbed by construction shall be re-vegetated with native shrubs and grasses within one growing season of the project's completion. 21. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 2-20-170 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on July _~!~_, 201 I . 22. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this property. ;~~,1-.fir ~., _ ~ ~) ~o-zcx~~ ~ • PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the }~ day of ~ t i n ..2006. APPROVED by the Director, this Z`~ff..day of ~ ~.. ~, 2008. Cindy Houben, Community Development Director PIDp 2465-283-01-004 Case: POSOAS EXHIBIT #4 LIST OF ADJACENT OWNERS Invercauld LLC 1177 West Loop South #1725 Houston, Texas 77027 James and Gay F. McGucklin P.O. Box 82578 Albuquerque, NM 87198-2578 Hans E. and Jill E. Roeschel 150 Spring Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 Sopris Mountain Ranch HOA, Inc. Go Gay Lewis 1802 County Road 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 Bureau of Land Management 0375 County Road 532 Rifle, CO 81650 ~~`~F,3 GRAPHIC MATERIALS ~ ~ PITKIN ~UNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL~MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00026451 Name: Paul Sturz Date:8/6/2008 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED Type: check # 5327 Permit Number Fee Description 0013.2008.PBOA PP- Board of Adjustment Fee Total: Amount 648.00 648.00 X52 4 J 7 } v" Members Present: Members Absent: Staff: 1~~NUTES Meeting of the Pitldn County Board of Adjustment January 5, 2010 Jamie Brewster-McLeod, Co-Chair Bob Throm Jim Riflcin Rick Head, Co-Chair Patrick McAllister Joanna Schaf&ier, Zoning Officer and acting secretary Brewster-McLeod opened the meeting at 5:30pm. CASELOAD: 16-2008 John Olson Lot 2, R&O Subdivision AKA 1444 Lower River Road, Snowmass John Olson was present to request a 32 foot Collector Street Setback variance and an 82 foot Front Yazd Setback variance where 50 feet and 100 feet respectively aze required on this 24.88 acre pazcel to permit three horse shelters. The existing, non-permitted structures are also partially located outside of the approved building envelope. The applicant presented the Affidavit of Posting. There were no members of the public present to comment on the request, and no objections were filed with the Zoning Office. Schaffner stated that the application has been re-noticed in the Aspen Times, through a mailing to neighbors, and with a sign posted on the site. Schaffner explained that this case has been left open since the fall of 2008, when the applicant first appeazed before the Board for this same request. At that time, the Boazd was reluctant to approve a variance for a structure located outside of the approved building envelope. The applicant requested the Boazd table the application until the building envelope was amended. Mike Kraemer, Pitkin County planner was present to explain that the Planning Office did not wish to approve an envelope azound structures that were in the setback without approval from the Board of Adjustment, but assured the Boazd thaf the sheds avoided all constrained areas and the envelope will be amended if a variance were granted. Throm commented that most of the lot was located within the floodplain, then moved to approve the request based on a topographic hazdship. Riflcin seconded the motion and offered an amendment to the hazdship to include "not only unusual topographic conditions but also other conditions or situations of the property whereby the strict application of the Land Use Code's setback regulations would result in a peculiaz or practical hardship". The vote was 3-0; with all in favor. 02-2010 Pitldn County Airport 233 East Airport Road, Aspen Tim Malloy, planning consultant, and Dave LTlane, Assistant Director of Aviation, were present to represent the Pitkin County Airport in a request fora 20 foot Height variance where a maximum height of 20 feet is. allowed for accessory structures, #o erect a camera mast. The Affidavit of Posting was submitted. There were no members of the public present to comment on this case: Malloy explained that the 2004 Masterplan (approved by the FAA) included a recommendation to replace the current air traffic control tower because "some of its characteristics are not conducive to the best possible situation for air traffic control." A new traffic control tower would have an expected height of 130 feet to 200 feet and a projected cost of 20 million dollazs. (He pointed out the tower at the Eagle Airport is 148. feet tall.) The camera mast is an alternative to replacing the existing tower in the foreseeable future.. Malloy presented site plans, modified photos,. and illustrations of the proposed camera mast. The proposed closed circuit camera tower will be located at the south end of the runway. This mast will provide additional information and augmented visibility to the existing tower staff and improve airport safety. The pole will be approxixnately37-38 feet tall and the whip antennae brings the total height to 40 feet. The base will be less than 2 feet wide and the top will have anon-flashing warning beacon because of its close proximity to the runway. Riflein asked about the location. Why so close to Highway 82 and not closer to Owl Creek Road? NlaIloy explained that it had to do with the manner in which aircraft taxi, turn and queue for take-off, all of which happens on the Highway 82 side. of the runway system. Throm noted that this system is needed for safety. He asked why the cameras weren't being located on the existing tower. Malloy. explained that there would be no advantage to having cameras located at the tower site since it was too far away for the camera optics. The proposed location helps tower staff to better"see" the other end of the runway. Brewster-McLeod noted that the mast was already approved by the BOCC. Throm made a motion to approve the height variance based on the fact that it is a necessary addition to the Pitkin County Airport in terms of FAA approvals to have commercial and private aircraft coming and going." Rifkin seconded the motion and added that "the alternative to this proposed tower is the existing tower would have to be either changed or added to and the detriment and the cost and inconvenience of doing that aze outweighed by the advantage of approving this variance." The vote was taken and passed 3-0, with all in favor. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL 13-2008 Sturz, Paul and Linda Pazce16, Sopris Mountain Ranch Schaffner explained to the Boazd that the Land Use Code does not accommodate administrative approvals to amend Boazd of Adjustment decisions. However, it has been staff's policy to bring before the Boazd in an Administrative fashion, cases where the proposed structure or variance has been modified from the one originally reviewed by the Board. In cases where the modification is minor, staff informs the Boazd of the change without requiring a new application. If the Boazd finds that the change is minor and does not warrant a new hearing, staff will issue the permit. If the Boazd finds that certain conditions have changed, or that the proposed changes aze significantly different from what was originally approved, they may direct staff to require a new application, including new public notice. Schaffner then reminded the Boazd that Pazcel b of the Sopris Mountain Ranch subdivision received reaz yazd setback variances for asingle-family residence and detached garage in 2008 due to topographical hardships. The subject site bisects West Sopris Creek Road with a meadow on the south side of the road and a hillside on the north side of the road. Due to scenic concerns, the county did not wish for the residence to be constructed on the meadow side of the road, and approved a building envelope on the north side of the road, with the provision that the development not break the skyline as viewed from the county road. The building envelop on this 52 acre pazcel is pushed up against the reaz lot line, which is shazed with the BLM. The Sturz's have redesigned their house to connect the gazage to the reaz of the single family residence. The house itself has been pushed forwazd outside of the reaz yazd setback to accommodate the relocated garage. The revised setback request eliminates the variance for the detached gazage. The only portion of the proposed house now within the setback is the attached gazage. The hardship has not changed. Schaffher showed the Boazd the original site plan overlaid with the proposed structure, and highlighted the new encroachment into the setback. ~~~ ~ ~ , ,~ ,;~ The Boazd agreed that the total amount of encroachment into the setback is lessened with this new design: They unanimously agreed to approve the modification.. MIIV [TTES: Throm made a mofion to approve the minutes from the November 3, 2009 meeting. Rifkin seconded the motion and it passed with a vote of 3-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:OOpm. Respectfully submitted;- 3~Y~a~ - , ~~oanna S. ~c er, Date Jamie Brewst -McLeod, Date `Zoning Officer Co-Chair, Board ofAdjustrnenf